»r-Lj: 


}^^ 


;vA. 


m^;m  >r-y 


^-^■^ 


r^^i 


4J-- 


'^'ifk  \ 


''     .i 


!£k  s  o3 1^  <£^  i:^.  "^s- 

OF   TUK 


PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


SAMUEL   AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA 


BX  5950  .R523  1827  c.l 
Rice,  John  Holt,  1771-1831. 
Review  of  the  "Doctrines  of 
the  church  vindicated  from 


>-. 


REVIEW 


"SOOTRXNES  OF  THE  CBUHCB 


"VINDICATED  FROM  THE  MISREPRESENTATIONS  OF' 


"DU.  JOHX  RICE;' 


'AND    THE    INTEGRITY    OF  REVEALED    RELIGION    DEFENDED    AGAINST 
THE    'NO    COMMENT    PRINCIPLE'    OF    PROMISCUOUS    BrBLE    SOCIE- 
TIES:      BY    THE    RIGHT    REV'd  JOHN   S.    RAVENSCROKT,    D.D. 
BISHOP    OF    THE  DIOCESE  OF  NORTH-CAROLINA." 


ORIGINALLY  PUBLISHED  IN  THE 


RICHMOND,  VA. 

PRINTED    AT    THE    FRANKLIW    PRESS. 

iBsr. 


^'^^^^fki^^^' 


^J^:<^ 


NOTICE. 


The  following  sheets  were  first  printed  in  numbers  in  the  Literary  and 
Bvangfelical  Magazine. 

They  were  composed  in  the  odd  ends  and  corners  of  time  saved  from  a 
most  laborious  employment. 

They  wtre  printed  at  a  distance  from  the  residence  of  the  writer,  so  that 
he  had  no  opportunity  of  reading  the  proofs. 

The  work  grew  on  the  author's  hands  much  beyond  his  expectation  or 
intent'on. 

This  statement  will  account  for  the  repetitions  which  occasionally  appear 
in  the  work;  for  tlie  imperfections  of  style  ;  the  numerous  typographical 
inaccuracies  which  deform  it  ;  and  for  the  omission  of  some  topics,  the  dis- 
cussion  of  which  was  promised. 


ERRATA. 


Page  5,  line  13  from  bottom  erase  tlie 
commas  after  is  and  doubt. 
22,  line  5  from  boUom,  for  !  in- 
sert a  period. 

33,  line   10,   read  Being  divinely 

inspired,  &c. 
ib.   line  22,  after  error  insert  only. 

34,  line  1,  after  dust  insert  :  in- 

stead of  , 
42,  line  12  from  bottom  for,  the 

same  read  one. 
44,  line  5  from  bottom,   insert  a 

comma  after  society. 
47,  line  3,  for  Lyn.  read  Syn, 
50,  line  3  from  bottom  for  was 

read  is. 
53,  lines  32  and  33,  for  right  read 
rite.  Ceremony  is  a  bettt-r  word. 
67,  line  21,  for  -work  read  it. 

73,  line  20,  for  began  read  begun. 

74,  line  8  from  botton^,  for  sug- 

gested read  suggestion. 
77,  lines  12  and  2  from  bottom, 
for  ordinary  read  ordaining, 
ib.  Note  3d  line,  for  angletised 
read  anglicised. 

89,  line  16,  for  a  church,  read  the 

church. 

90,  line   16,  for  Griesback  read 

Griesbach. 

102,  line  11  from  bottom,  for  Co. 

reirread  Coteler 

103,  line  16,  for  by  read  of. 

ib.  line  19,  for  bishops — presby. 
ters,  read  bishop-presbyters. 
107,  line  20,  for  came,  read  come. 
Ill,  line  7,i'orp(iris,  rend  pares, 
ib.  line  14,  after  heathenism  insert : 
113,  line  26,  for  dispositionea  dom- 
inicm,  read  dispositionis  dominicx. 


Page  llS.lIne  8  from  bottom, fop  Jona, 
rf-ad  lona, 
118,  line  \5,i[nr  Jlrdan,rea,A  Aidan. 
122,  line  17  fn.m  bottom,  put  a 
comma  after  4,instead  of  a  period. 
126,    line    18,   for   business   read 

bishops. 
128,  line  26.for  Redtey  read  Ridley. 

138,  line  10  from  bottom,  for  de- 
riling  read  derives. 

139,  line  ll.after  B^ble^nser^.  even, 

145,  line  1,   for  These  read  There. 

146,  line  21,  for  an  additional  rea' 
son,  read  a  reason  additional , 

147,  line  18  from  bottom,  for  he, 
redd  lie. 

165,  line  10,  for  ilia  lachryma,  read 

illm  lachrymx. 
167,  line  9,  insert  a  mark  of  quota- 
tion after  death, 
180,  line  5,  for  socfarum  read  5q?ic- 
tarum. 
ib.  line  9,  msert  ?  after  church, 
ib.  line  17,  insert  a  mark  of  quo- 
tation after  approbations. 

187,  line  21  from  bottom,  for  slate 
read  statement. 

ib.  line  6  do.  do.  for  Lirensia  read 
Lirinensis, 

188,  line   13  do.  do.  for  undeter. 
mined  read  indeterminate, 

189,  line  8,  for  on  read  or. 
191,  line  2  from  bottom,  aS{tr point 

insert  : 
J*,  line  1  from  bottom,  after  «/c- 

cision,  place  a  comma, 
194,  line  20,   for  charges  read 

changes. 
203,  line  14  from  bottom,  for  The 
naked,  read  When  the  naked,  S^c. 


OF 

The  Doctrines  of  ike  Church  Vindicated,  d^c. 


This  is  probably  the  most  polemic  title  page  that  has  been  print- 
ed for  the  last  hundred  years.  We  certainly  have  seen  nothing 
like  it  ip  modern  times.  As  critics,  we  are  obliged  to  say  that  it  is 
in  very  bad  taste  ;  and  as  Christians,  we  cannot  but  add,  that  it 
breathes  a  bad  spirit.  Justice,  too,  compels  us  to  remark,  that  the 
whole  work  is  of  a  piece  with  the  title.  We  have  never,  in  all  our 
reading,  seen  an  example  of  more  perfect  conformity  to  the  critical 
rule  of  Horace,  than  has  been  given  by  this  author  ; 

Servetur  ad  imum 

Qiialis  ab   incoepto  processerit,  et  sibi  constet. 

It  is  indeed  a  rare  instance  of  perfect  consistency  ;  the  more  to 
be  admired,  because  the  whole  work  is  at  variance  with  the  spirit 
which  ought  to  govern  a  christian  polemic,  and  possesses  a  charac- 
ter of  mind  and  heart  which  ought  not  to  be  impressed  on  any  thing 
by  a  bishop  of  the  church.  Evidently  the  writer  was  angry.  And 
when  we  first  glanced  at  the  title  page,  we  could  not  help  exclaim- 
ing "  Ira,  brevis furor  est!'''  But  on  looking  through  the  book,  and 
perceiving  the  same  spirit  pervading  the  whole,  it  occurred  to  us, 
and  the  thought  really  excited  compassion,  that  the  paroxysm  must 
have  continued  a  surprising  length  of  time — through  the  writing  and 
printing  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  octavo  pages  !  The  book  puts 
us  in  mind  of  a  dinner  made  by  a  man  of  foreign  garb  and  accent,  by 
whom  it  was  our  fortune  to  sit  not  long  ago  at  table,  on  board  a  steam- 
boat. He  first  called  for  fish,  and  sprinkled  on  it  at  least  two  tea- 
spoonfuls  of  Cayenne  pepper  !  After  eating  this,  he  asked  for  roast 
beef,  and  seasoned  his  slice  with  an  equal  quantity  of  Cayenne  pep- 
per 1  !  He  then  took  sallad,  and  it  was  Cayenne  pepper  again  !  !  ! 
So  of  this  book;  but  with  this  difference  ;  the  traveller  employed 
the  pepper  for  his  own  use  ;  but  this  fiery  preparation  is  made  for 
us.  VVe,  however,  must  beg  to  be  excused.  We  certainly  "will 
take  none  of  it !"  And  we  would  have  our  readers  to  understand 
that  by  a  process,  now  through  long  use  familiar,  we  can  as  critics, 
separate  from  a  work  every  thing  personally  offensive,  and  touch 
only  on  that  which  concerns  the  public.  We  have  thrown  bishop 
R's  work  into  our  alembic,  and  shall  in  due  time  take  out  all  the 
parts  which  it  is  important  others  should  "  handle  and  taste,"  and 
serve  them  up  in  a  style,  which  we  fondly  hope  every  body  will  ap- 
prove. 

We  have  made  these  remtirks  for  the  purpose  of  shewing  that  we 
gre  in  perfect  good  humour,  and  so  shall  continue  during  the  whole 
of  this  process.     If  others  forget  themselves,  it  is  not  for  us  to  fol- 
1 


4      Review  of  Bishop  RavenscroJt*s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

low  their  example.  We  know  too  well  both  the  pleasure  and  ad- 
vantage of  keeping  cool,  to  allow  ourselves  to  grow  warm. 

The  bishop,  however,  has  placed  us  in  a  delicate  situation.  His 
intemperate  language  merits  rebuke.  He  has  offended  the  public 
taste,  and  has  set  an  example  of  conducting  religious  controversy, 
which  ought  not  to  be  imitated.  The  critics  are  bound  to  set  him 
up  as  a  wiirningfor  others.  But  should  we  do  this  with  the  best 
temper  in  the  world,  prejudiced  men  of  all  sorts,  will  cry  out  against 
us,  as  cherishing  personal  resentments  ;  and  many  will  be  glad  of 
the  opportunity  of  saying  "  See  how  these  Theologians  hate  one 
another." — Now  we  hate  nobody  ;  we  are  angry  with  nobody  ;  and 
we  are  very  desirous  that  none  may  commit  sm  by  saying  of  us  what 
is  not  true.  We  fully  purpose,  therefore,  as  far  as  possible,  to  shun 
even  the  appearance  of  evil.  Yet  we  earnestly  wish  to  mak^  bish- 
op R.  feel  that  he  ought  to  have  been  more  "  courteous,"  more 
urbane  and  gentle. 

For  this  purpose  we  will  ask  him  to  recal  to  recollection  the  lan- 
guage which  be  has  applied  to  us,  and  then  make  the  following  sup- 
positions :  1.  That  he  and  his  Reviewer,  instead  of  being  clergy- 
men, were  members  of  Congress,  or  officers  of  government,  who  pro- 
fess to  be  regulated  by  that  wretched  system  called  the  code  of 
honour ;  what  would  men  of  the  same  stamp  say  that  the  Reviewer 
must  do,  or  be  forever  disgraced  ?  2.  Let  it  be  supposed  that  the 
Bishop  and  the  Reviewer  were  plain  citizens,  who  submit  to  the 
laws,  and  seek  redress  of  their  wrongs  from  the  justice  of  their 
country  ;  how  could  the  Reviewer  do  any  thing  but  vindicate  his 
character  in  a  civil  court  ?  Yet  both  Bishop  and  Reviewer  are 
clergymen,  and  recourse  to  such  measures  would  cover  them  with 
everlasting  reproach  :  both  are  obliged  to  adopt  the  maxim  of  the 
admirable  Cowper,  expressed  in  the  following  lines, 

A  pious,  sensible  and  well-bred  man, 
//'///  not  insult  me,  and  no  other  can. 

The  Right  Rev.  Dr  Ravenscroft  knows  this  ;  and,  therefore,  we 
are  sorry  to  have  to  say,  he  ought  not  to  employ  language,  which, 
according  to  common  usage,  is  regarded  as  insulting  and  abusive. 

If  these  remarks  are  not  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  salutary 
reproof,  we  must  refer  to  the  scriptures.  And  we  do  here  most  ear- 
nestly entreat  the  bishop  to  compare  the  terms  whicii  he  has  per- 
mitted himself  to  use  in  reference  to  his  Revievper,  with  the  char- 
acter which  a  bishop  ought  to  sustain,  and  the  conduct  he  ought  to 
pursue,  according  to  the  judgment  ofthe  Apostle  Paul.  "  A  bishop 
then  must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,^ 
of  good  behaviour,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  ?iot  given  to 
wine,'\  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre  ;  but  patient,  not  a 
brawler,  not  covetous,  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having 
his  children  in  subjection  with  all  gravity  :  (for  if  a  man  know  not 

ZCO^pQV  the  word  here  used,  means  one  who  has  all  the  thoughts, 
desires  and  passions  well  regulated  and  restrained. 

T  Ttapoivog,  has  b«en  rendered,  ready  to  quarrel  and  ofTer  wrong,  as 
one  m  wine.  ♦ 


Review  ofBishni)  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence.     5 

how  to  rnle  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  church 
of  God  ?)  not  a  novice,  lest  being  lifted  up  with  pride,  he  fall  into 
the  condemnation  of  the  devil.  Moreover,  he  must  have  a  good  re- 
port of  them  that  are  without  ;  lest  he  fall  into  re{)roach  and  the 
snare  of  the  devil."  1  Tim.  iii,  2 — 7.  Again  the  same  holy  Apos- 
tle says,  "  And  the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  strive,  but  be 
gentle  unto  all  men,  apt  to  teach,  patient,  in  meekness  instructing 
(hose  that  oppose  themselves.'"  2  Tim.  ii,  24,  25.  Hear,  also,  what 
he  saith  in  the  epistle  to  Titus,  "  for  this  cause  left  1  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  or- 
dain ELDERS  in  every  city,  as  I  appointed  thee  ;  if  any  be  blameless, 
the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of 
riot  or  unruly  :  for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless  as  the  steward  of 
God  ;  not  self-'jailled,  not  soo7i  angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker, 
not  given  to  tiUhy  lucre,  &c."   Tit.  i,  5 — 7. 

We  are  as  far  as  possible  from  blaming  any  one  for  earnestly 
contending  for  what  he  believes  to  be  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
gospel.  On  the  contrary,  if  he  fails  to  do  this,  he  fails  in  his  duty. 
But  it  is  mournful  to  see  one,  who  is  <  lothed  with  the  sacred  name 
of  Christ's  ambassador,  and  raised  to  an  exalted  station  in  the  church 
forgetting  the  dignity  of  his  high  calling,  the  proprieties  of  his  of- 
fice, the  gentleness  of  spirit  which  peculiarly  becomes  him  ;  and 
using  reproachful  epithets,  uttering  bitter  words,  and  displaying 
violent  passion.  The  public  good  requires  that  he  should  be  told 
of  his  fault,  frankly  yet  mildly;  and  warned  not  to  repeat  it.  If 
bishop  R.  had  been  a  Presbyterian,  there  would  be  much  less  oc- 
casion for  our  taking  this  trouble  ;  because  we  do  conscientiously 
believe,  that  such  a  book  as  he  has  written  would  have  called  forth 
admonitions  from  his  Presbytery,  fully  sufficient  for  all  salutary 
purposes. 

So  far  in  discharge  of  our  duty  to  the  public — One  word  as  to 
the  personal  concerns  of  the  Reviewer.  Bishop  Ravenscroft  says 
of  himself  "  You  have  mistaken  your  man."  He  might  have  saved 
himself  the  trouble  of  saying  this  ;  we  were  fully  convinced  of  it, 
before  he  told  us.  Formerly,  with  a  sincerity,  which  obtained  no 
credit  from  all  those  who  were  incapable  of  entering  into  our  feelings , 
we  expressed  a  warm  fraternal  affection  for  him  as  a  christian  and 
a  minister.  This  brotherly  love  was  rejected  with  a  scorn  and  de- 
rision, which,  it  is,  no  doubt,  thought  become  a  high  churchman. 
We  know  that,  commonly,  despised  love  turns  to  hatred.  But  we 
do  most  solemnly  protest  that  it  is  not  so  with  us.  The  only  eflfects 
of  the  conviction  that  we  had  mistaken  our  man  were,  tirst,  the  sur- 
prise natural  to  all  on  the  occurrence  of  an  unexpected  event ; 
then  pity ;  and  finally  sorrow.  We  do  sincerely  pity  any  man  in 
this  world,  who  easily  gets  narm,  and  has  a  great  capacity  for  re- 
taining heat.  He  cannot  be  happy.  We  are  sorry,  when  the  high 
passions  and  intemperate  language  of  a  christian  minister  injure  the 
cause  of  religion. — It  is  very  probable  that  this  modification  of  our  af- 
fection will  be  rejected  with  higher  scorn  than  ever.  We  cannot  help 
it — the  result  will  be,  that  our  pity  will  be  rendered  the  more  pro- 
found, our  sorrow  the  more  pungent.     As  far  as  experience  goes.. 


e     Rcxicw  of  Bishop  Ravcuscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

we  are  u  arronted  too  in  saying  that  it  will  cause  us  much  more  fre- 
quently than  ever,  in  our  secret  uddresses  to  the  throne  of  grace, 
to  think  of  a  prayer  which  cannot  but  be  familiar  to  bishop  Ravens- 
croft.  This  prayer  so  exactly  expresses  our  feelings  on  the  pre- 
sent occasion  that  we  must  beg  leave  to  quote  it.  "  Almighty  and 
everlasting  God,  from  whom  conieth  every  good  and  perfect  gift, 
send  down  upon  our  bishops  and  other  clergy,  and  upon  the  con- 
gregiitions  committed  to  their  charge,  the  healthful  spirit  of  thy 
grace  ;  and  that  they  may  truly  please  thee,  pour  upon  them  the 
continual  dew  of  thy  blessing  :  Grant  this,  O  Lord,  for  the  honour 
of  our  Advocate  and  Mediator  Jesus  Christ.  Amen." — And  here 
the  Reviewer  ventures  to  say,  but  with  no  boastful  spirit,  to  bishop 
R.  and  all  who  think  with  him,  "  You  have  mistaken  your  man" — 
As  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned,  it  is  his  policy  to  live  down 
reproaches.  No  bitterness  of  language  will  provoke  him  to  returu 
railing  for  railing  :  by  the  grace  of  God  nothing  Shall  prevent  him 
from  acknowledging  as  brethren  ail  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
cherishing  towards  them  fraternal  afleclion,  and  rejoicing  in  their 
gifts  and  graces.  No  man  shall  deprive  him  of  the  pleasure  he 
enjoys  while  praying  for  the  blessing  of  God  on  them  and  their  la- 
bours, and  entertaining  the  hope  that  he  will  enjoy  everlasting 
communion  with  them  in  a  better  world.  The  Reviewer,  on  de- 
liberate examination,  has  his  preferences  in  regard  to  religious 
connexions.  He  might  have  been  an  Episcopalian  ;  he  was  free 
to  choose  his  denomination.  One  thing  which  had  no  small  influ- 
ence in  determining  him  to  be  a  Presbyterian  was,  the  following 
passages  in  their  book  called   "  The  Confession  of  Faith." 

"  All  saints  that  are  united  to  Jesus  Christ  their  head,  by  his 
Spirit  and  by  faith,  have  fellowship  with  him  in  his  graces,  suffer- 
ings, death,  resurrection  and  glory  :  and,  being  united  to  one  another 
in  love,  they  have  communion  in  each  others  gifts  and  graces,  and  are 
obliged  to  the  performance  of  such  duties,  public  and  private,  as  do 
conduce  to  their  mutual  good,  both  in  the  inward  and  the  outward 
man." — "  Saints  by  profession,  are  bound  to  maintain  a  holy  fell  ore - 
ship  and  communion  in  the  worship  of  God,  and  in  performing  such 
other  spiritual  services  as  tend  to  their  mutual  edification  ;  as  also 
in  relieving  each  other  in  outward  things  according  to  their  several 
abilities  and  necessities.  Which  communion,  as  God  aff'ereth  oppor- 
tunity, is  to  be  extended  to  all  those,  who  in  every  place  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. ^''  Again  ;  the  Presbyterian  church  has  so- 
lemnly and  publicly  declared  their  belief  "  thai  there  are  truths 
and  forms  with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  ch  ir.irtfrs  and  prin- 
ciples may  diiler  :  and  in  all  these  they  think  it  the  duty,  both  of 
private  christians  and  societies,  to  exercise  mutual  forbearance  to- 
wards each  other."  Here  is  a  truly  liberal,  that  is  a  truly  chris- 
tian spirit.  The  Reviewer  in  his  various  inquiries  sougiit  in  vain 
for  such  maxims  in  the  acknowledged  standards  of  any  other  de- 
nomination :  and  this,  in  part,  was  the  reason  why  he  preferred  the 
Presbyterian  Church  to  all  others.  His  purpose  is  to  act  consist- 
ently with  this  ground  of  preference.  But  in  doing  this,  it  will 
always  be  his  duty  to  oppose  those  arrogant  claims,  and  exclusive 


Hevicw  of  Bishop  RavtnscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence.    7 
* 
pretension!?,  which,  in  pursuit  of  a  hopeless  uniformity,  breakup 
t!ie  fellonship  of  Christians,  prevent  their  co-operation,  and  place 
stumbling  blocks  in  the  vvay  of  others. 

The  Heviewer  is  ashamed  of  having  said  thus  much  of  himself. 
But  he  is  now  done,  lie  wishes  tliat  liis  real  design,  and  the  true 
objects  of  the  present  controversy  may  be  clearly  understood. 
And  for  this  purpose  he  feels  it  to  be  his  duty  to  add  to  what  has 
been  already  said,  a  iew  historical  remarks  ;  which  will  not  only 
serve  the  present  occasion,  but  also  stand  in  place  of  an  answer  to 
many  causeless  reflections  thrown  out  by  the  right  reverend  authoi- 
in  the  book  before  us. 

It  is  well  known  that  while  Virginia  was  a  British  Colony,  the 
Church  of  England  w;is  by  law  estahlished  among  us.  We  do  not 
blame  the  present  Episcopal  Church  for  the  conduct  of  the  estab- 
lishment ;  but  we  see  no  reason  why  historical  trulh  should  be 
concealed  out  of  tenderness  to  our  contemporaries.  The  over- 
bearing and  monopolizing  spirit  of  all  establishments  was  manifested 
in  this  colony.  It  will  always  be  so,  when  interests,  which  ought  to 
be  purely  spiritual,  receive  a  secular  character.  The  clergy  were 
generally  worldly  men.  For  the  most  part  they  v/ere  foreign  ad- 
venturers, whose  language  to  their  patrons  in  England  was,  "  Put 
me,  I  pray  thee,  into  one  of  the  priest's  offices,  that  I  may  eat  a 
piece  of  bread."  Bui  when  they  came  here  and  got  into  fat  livings, 
they  ate  and  drank,  hunted  and  played  with  the  gentry  of  the  coun- 
try ;  ihey  married  the  people,  christened  thejr  children,  and  buried 
the  dead  :  but  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  gospel  were  not  preach- 
ed, and  by  many  among  them  were  not  believed.  We  with  plea- 
sure admit  that  there  were  honuurable  exceptions,  but  we  give  the 
general  character  of  the  established  clergy  as  known  to  many  who 
yet  survive. 

Men  whose  care  of  (he  flock,  to  borrow  an  expression  from  one 
of  themselves,  was  ahvays  manifest  at  shearing  time,  could  not  with 
any  patience  witness  the  coming  in  of  Dissenters  to  lead  the  people 
off  from  the  parish  church.  This  intrusion  did  not  indeed  lessen 
the  salary  of  the  clergy  ;  but  it  exhibited  their  indolence  and  world- 
ly spirit  in  a  very  odious  light.  The  consequence  was,  that  no 
class  of  Dissenters  escaped  persecution.  A  Presbyterian  clergy- 
man, who  for  a  long  series  of  years,  was  regarded  as  one  of  the 
lights  of  the  country,  and  an  ornament  of  the  city  in  which  he  lived 
(the  late  venerable  Dr  Rodgers,  of  New  York)  was  compelled  to 
leave  the  colony.  Dissenters  of  other  denominations  experienced 
treatment,  sometimes  morn  harsh  than  this. 

But  about  eighty  years  a<j;o,  n  train  of  remarkable  providences, 
brought  into  the  colony  of  Viiginia,  the  Rev.  Samuel  Davies.  a  man 
who  would  have  done  honour  to  any  church  in  any  age.  The  es- 
tablishment was  then  in  its  vigour  ;  and  it  required  all  the  talents 
of  Davies  to  convince  the  rtiling  powers  that  the  Jlct  of  Toleration 
extended  to  this  country.  The  energy  of  that  distinguished  man, 
however,  succeeded  in  securing  the  protection  of  the  law  to  the 
Presbyterian  church,  which  was  then  organized  in  the  colony.  The 
progress  of  this  society  in  Virginia  in  later  times  has  been  so  slow, 


8     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  llmUcalion  and  Defence. 

that  one  can  scarcely  believe  the  accounts  of  its  rapid  growth  in 
the  days  of  Davies  and  his  compeers.  The  reasons  of  this  increase 
may  be  found  in  the  character  of  the  men  who  were  employed  as 
instruments,  their  fervent  zeal,  their  perfect  union  and  co-operation, 
•their  indefatigable  industry  ;  and  in  the  facts,  that  many  of  the  ori- 
ginal settlers  of  the  state  were  Presbyterians  in  principle,  and  that 
numbers  in  the  established  church  were  dissatislied  with  the  con- 
duct of  the  clergy. 

One  of  the  measures  resorted  (o  at  the  time,  to  stop  the  progress 
of  dissent  was  the  cry  that  Dissenters  had  no  right  to  preach  and 
administer  the  ordinances.  This  gave  occasion  to  the  only  publi- 
cations of  a  controversial  character  made  by  the  Presbyterians 
while  they  were  Dissenters.  On  one  or  two  occasions,  when  min- 
isters were  to  be  ordained,  Davies  vindicated  the  validity  of  Pres- 
byterial  ordination,  and  published  his  sermons  for  the  information 
of  the  people.  He,  however,  carefully  abstained  from  attacking 
the  Episcopalians  ;  but  acted  entirely  on  the  defensive.  We  have 
reason  to  believe  that  the  pulpits  of  the  established  church  rung 
with  the  cry  of  war  against  these  intruders,  but  the  Presbyterians 
content  with  th«  defence  which  had  been  made,  remained  on  this 
head  entirely  silent. 

Affairs  went  on  in  this  way,  until  the  Pcevolution  broke  down  the 
established  church.  In  this  case  the  Presbyterians  showed  no  in- 
decent triumph  at  her  fall,  no  glorying  over  her  in  her  ruin.  The 
principles  of  religious  liberty,  however,  which  were  then  estab- 
lished, being  perfectly  coincident  with  those  held  by  the  whole 
body  of  Presbyterians  in  this  country,  were  regarded  as  in  the 
highest  degree  auspicious  to  the  true  interests  of  religion  ;  and  the 
members  of  that  denomination  were  perfectly  satisfied.  Without 
interfering  in  any  way  with  others,  they  proceeded  to  preach  the 
gospel,  and,  by  promoting  sound  learning  and  true  morality  as  they 
could,  to  discharge  the  duty  of  good  citizens,  expressing  their  obli- 
gations to  society  for  peace  and  protection,  by  contributing  their 
share  to  the  common  welfare. 

It  deserves  to  be  distinctly  remarked,  that  it  has  uniformly  been  a 
jirinciple 'itnih  that  society  not  to  seek  for  proselytes.  If  an  in- 
discreet individual  has  disregarded  this  principle,  we  are  prepared 
to  challenge,  and  we  boldly  do  challenge  proof  to  contradict  our 
general  remark.  We  have  carefully  perused  the  records  of  the 
Church  in  this  state  from  the  organization  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Hanover  until  the  present  day,  and  are  convinced  that  they  fully 
bear  out  our  assertion.  The  Presbyterians  receive  those  who  ap- 
ply, if  on  examination  they  are  approved  ;  but  they  solicit  none. 
Their  conduct  towards  other  denominations  has  been  marked  by 
extreme  liberality.  They  acknowledge  brotherhood  with  all  who 
hold  the  fundamental  doctrmes  of  Christianity  ;  they  commune  with 
them,  and  receive  them  into  communion,  while  they  ask  none  to 
give  up  their  distinctive  names,  or  leave  their  church  connexions. 
Many  Episcopalians  can  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  this  statement, 
and  know  that  for  years,  while  deprived  of  the  privileges  of  their 
own  church,  they  have  participated  in  all  the  advantages  which 


Review  of  Bishop  Mavenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence.     9 

Presbyterians  can  afford  to  their  own  members.  This  course  of 
conduct,  united  with  the  natural  influence  of  our  free  institutions, 
did  much  to  soften  down  and  nearly  eradicate  old  prejudices.  A 
few  years  ago,  it  was  not  uncommon  to  see  Presbyterians  and  Epis- 
copalians at  the  same  communion  table,  and  their  ministers  in  the 
same  pulpit.  No  one  ever  expected,  or,  as  far  as  we  know,  even 
wished  that  the  churches  should  be  amalgamated  ;  but  the  hope 
was  entertained  that  their  ministers  and  members  would  live  to- 
gether as  brethren,  in  the  habitual  interchange  of  christian  kindness. 

This  view  of  things  shows  why  the  Presbyterians  have  forborne 
to  press  their  peculiar  sentiments  ;  and  explains  the  reason  why 
the  people  of  the  South  have  never  as  far  as  Presbyterians  are 
concerned  in  the  thing,  been  made  acquainted  with  the  Episcopal 
controversy.  Bishop  R.  seems  to  reproach  us  with  this  fact  : 
whereas  we  have  thought,  and  we  still  presume  to  think,  that  here 
is  a  proof  of  our  exemplary  moderation.  It  would  have  been  easy 
for  us  to  have  made  an  attack,  and  gained  the  victory,  when  there 
was  none  to  oppose  us.  But  the  Presbyterians  are  above  a  warfare 
of  this  kind,  as  they  are  above  a  narrow,  sectarian,  proselyte-hunt- 
ing spirit. 

Not  to  indulge,  however,  in  remarks  of  this  kind,  we  proceed  to 
observe  that  while  the  hopes  before  mentioned  were  entertained, 
some  of  the  most  warm  hearted  and  sanguine  among  the  Presbyterians 
were  meditating  a  plan  of  ministerial  intercourse,  to  be  adopted  by 
the  two  societies.  But  in  the  midst  of  these  projects,  what  is  com- 
monly called  "  A  Revival  of  the  Episcopal  Church"  took  place. — 
This  event  was,  to  our  certain  knowledge,  hailed  with  great  joy  by 
many  Presbyterians.  They  were  deliglited,  they  were  thankful  to 
see,  rising  up  in  a  sister  church,  men  of  liberal  zeal  and  enlighten- 
ed piety,  who,  it  was  hoped,  would  co-operate  with  them  in  supply- 
ing the  spiritual  wants  of  the  southern  country.  It  is  a  fact,  which 
we  are  able  to  establish,  that  in  some  instances,  distinguished  Pres- 
byterian clergymen,  advised  pious  young  men,  who  had  numerous 
Episcopal  connexions,  to  enter  the  ministry  in  the  Episcopal,  rather 
than  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  on  the  ground  that  in  this  way 
they  might  perhaps  be  more  useful.  It  was  well  known,  too,  that 
there  is  a  sphere  wide  enough  for  the  labours  of  all  ;  and  not  the 
most  distant  apprehension  was  entertained  of  unfriendly  collision, 
or  anfraternal  rivalry. 

But  unhappily,  amidst  these  pleasing  anticipations,  by  some  means 
it  began  to  be  whispered  about,  in  one  private  circle  and  another, 
that  the  Episcopal  church  is  the  only  true  church  ;  that  there  is  no 
validity  in  Presbyterial  ordination  ;  and  that  Episcopalians  ought 
not  to  acknowledge  the  truth  and  reality  of  their  sacraments. 
These  private  hints  and  whispers  took  effect,  and  numbers,  whom 
we  had  long  welcomed  to  our  ordinances,  and  with  whom  we  de- 
lighted to  hold  communion,  silently  withdrew.  To  keep  up  ap- 
pearances, however,  christians  of  all  denominations  were  invited  to 
receive  ordinances  at  the  hands  of  Episcopal  ministers  :  but  they 
could  not  unite  with  others,  "  for  that  you  know  would  be  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  Validity  of  their  ordination."     Indeed;  it  soon 


i  0     Ue'oieiv  of  bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Ijecame  manifest  to  every  observer,  that  while  there  was  not  cour- 
age to  avow  exclusive  claims  and  pretensions,  there  was  a  secret 
Agency,  the  object  of  which  was  to  spread  the  opinion,  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  not  a  church  of  Christ.  It  was  not  difficult 
for  those  who  chose  it,  to  trace  this  under-ground  work  to  the  very 
commencement. 

This  sort  of  attack,  often  spoken  of  under  the  name  of  '•  bush 
fjghting"  called  forth  two  publications,  the  sole  object  of  which  was 
to  show  the  validity  of  Presbyterial  order  and  administration  ;  to 
prove  that  we  are  a  branch  of  the  Christian  church  ;  that  our  min- 
isters ought  to  be  received  as  ministers  of  the  gospel  ;  and  that  our 
bretiiren  ought  to  esteem  it  as  great  a  privilege  to  commune  with 
us,  as  it  was  for  us  to  commune  with  them.  Ail  intention  of  attack- 
ing any  thing  but  high-church  principles  was  solemnly  disavowed  ; 
and  a  most  earnest  desire  expressed  of  preserving  "  the  unity  of 
the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Indeed  the  hope  was  cherished, 
that,  without  much  effort,  the  spirit  of  the  age  would  put  down  ar- 
rogance and  bigotry  ;  and  that  they  who  were  raising  anew  the  old 
cry  "  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord  are  WE,"  would 
be  obliged  for  their  own  sakes  to  hold  their  peace. 

But  in  the  midst  of  these  things,  Dr  Ravenscroft,  who  had  for 
some  time  been  uneasy  under  the  prudential  restraints  which  were 
laid  on  him,  was  chosen  and  consecrated  Bisiiop  of  the  diocese  of 
North  Carolina.  This  afforded  him  an  opportunity,  which  he  was 
not  slow  to  embrace,  of  declaring  his  sentiments  as  a  high  church- 
man. In  a  farewell  sermon  delivered  to  the  people  of  bis  former 
charge  ;  and  in  a  discourse  pronounced  at  the  first  meeting  of  the 
convention  of  his  diocese,  after  his  induction,  he  expressed  sorrow 
for  his  former  tenderness  towards  Dissenters,  and  openly  maintain- 
ed that  there  is  no  true  church  but  the  Episcopal  ;  that  hers  is  the 
only  authorized  ministry  ;  that  her  sacraments  are  the  only  seals 
of  God's  covenanted  mercies  ;  and  that  separated  from  her  com- 
munion, we  have  no  warranted  hopes  of  salvation. 

Had  these  sermons  been  only  preached  to  the  people  and  clergy 
of  his  own  connexion,  we  should  have  remained  entirely  silent. 
But  they  were  printed  and  put  into  circulation,  evidently  with  the 
intention  of  propagating  the  sentiments  of  the  author.  Of  this  how- 
ever, we  do  not  complain.  The  press  is  free  :  discussion  ought  to 
be  unshackled.  Every  man,  under  his  responsibility  to  the  law  of 
the  land,  and  to  the  great  tribunal  of  public  opinion,  has  a  right  to 
publish  what  he  pleases.  This  is  our  right  and  we  mean  to  exer- 
cise it  :  but  not  causelessly,  much  less  wantonly.  And  we  have 
made  the  preceding  statement  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  we 
had  grave  reasons  for  the  course  pursued  by  us. 

Bishop  K.  had,  in  his  own  peculiar  manner,  attacked  truths  and 
principles,  which  we  conscientiously  regard  as  highly  important. 
He  boldly  attempted  to  cut  asunder  ties  which  had,  for  some  years, 
been  drawing  together  christians  of  difierent  denominations,  and  to 
break  up  totally  a  communion  which  many  had  found  to  be  profita- 
ble and  pleasant.  He  taught  men  to  place  a  value  on  matters  of 
minor  importance,  which  ought  only  to  be  given  to  things  essential 


Review  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence.    11 

(o  salvation.  He  created  incurable  divisions,  where  men  ought  to 
agree  to  differ  ;  and  in  our  deliberate  opinion  did  much  to  fix  deep- 
er in  the  church  the  old  reproach,  which  it  is  the  endeavour  of  the 
present  day  to  wipe  off.  VVe  felt  it  our  duty  to  animadvert  on  these 
sermons  in  such  style  as  we  thought  they  deserved. 

It  was  indeefl  the  opinion  of  some,  that  we  had  undertaken  a  work 
of  gratuitous  labour  and  trouble  ;  that  tiie  extravagant  pretensions 
of  bishop  R.  might  be  left  to  sink  at  once  into  the  oblivion  to  which, 
it  was  believed,  they  are  destined.  We  thought  differently-  It 
has  for  some  time  appeared  obvious  to  us  that  there  is  growing  up 
a  spirit  in  this  country,  which  st-eks  for  marks  of(hsUnctioir  between 
itself  and  the  mass  oftlie  people.  As  lulidelity  is  out  of  fashion, 
and  Unit;irianism  is  not  popular  to  the  South,  there  is  a  great  de- 
mand, iiinoiig  people  of  a  certain  sort,  (to  use  a  phrase  current 
among  all  i£Ood  cavaliers  ever  since  tlie  "  merry  days  of  King 
Charles,'")  for  a  "  religion  tit  for  a  gentleman."  There  is,  also, 
among  many  of  our  republicans,  a  passion  for  ceremony,  for  pomp 
and  show  in  religious  worship.  Others,  moreover,  too  indolent, 
too  much  devoted  to  the  worlfl,  to  secure  scriptural  evidences  of 
their  being  in  a  state  of  salvation,  are  willing  enough  to  look  to  their 
priests  for  assurance.  High-church  notions,  then,  do  not  sink  un- 
der the  influence  of  public  opinion.  It  is  necessary  to  make  efforts 
to  pull  them  down.  The  interests  of  the  church  and  of  the  coun- 
try require  it.  Under  this  conviction,  we  acted  according  to  our 
sense  of  duty  ;  and  endeavoured  to  show  that  the  claims  of  this 
bishop  could  not  be  sustained  either  by  reason  or  Scripture. 

Not  long  after  we  had  performed  this  humble,  but  easy  service, 
it  was  understood  that  bishop  R.  on  being  invited  to  preach  a  ser- 
mon for  the  benefit  of  the  Bible  Societ}  of  North  Carolina,  accept- 
ed the  invitation,  and  made  a  direct  attack  on  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  that  institution.  This  extraordinary  proceeding  would 
have  been  left  to  the  animadversions  of  the  particular  friends  of  the 
Bible  Society  of  North  Carolina,  (who,  by  the  way,  have  shovva 
themselves  fully  able  to  do  their  own  work)  had  not  the  sermon 
been  published  and  distributed  among  us.  It  attacks  principles, 
dear  to  the  friends  of  all  Bible  Societies,  and  to  every  consistent 
Protestant  throughout  the  world.  VVe  again  felt  as  though  we  were 
called  on  to  bring  the  Bishop  under  review,  and  point  put  the  error 
of  liis  opinions.  And  this  the  more,  because  he  seemed  to  be  going 
systematically  to  work  in  support  of  high  church  principles.  This 
became  apparent,  when  he  published  his  Sermon  on  the  Interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture.  Tliis  completed  the  development  of  his  scheme. 
And  if  we  understand  it  at  all,  it  amounts  to  this. 

1.  As  to  the  Church  of  Christ :  This  is  the  Episcopal  Church,  and 
no  other.  They  who  are  separated  from  it  are  schismatics,  guilty 
of  grievous  sin,  and  without  authorized  hope  of  salvation. 

2.  As  to  the  Ministry  of  the  Gospel  :  It  is  really  a  Priesthood  di- 
vinely appointed  to  offer  sacred  things  to  God  ;  an  authoritative 
agency  between  man  and  his  Maker,  empowered  by  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Sacraments  to  give  assurance  of  the  pardon  of  sin  and 


12     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl^s  Vindication  and  Dejence. 

eternal  life.  But  all  who  are  not  Episcopally  ordained,  are  intrud- 
ers into  the  sacred  office  ;  mere  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing. 

3.  As  to  the  Scriptures  :  They  are  insufficient  of  themselves,  and 
ought  not  to  be  circulated  among  the  people  "  without  note  or  com- 
ment;"  but  by  all  means  be  accompanied  with  that  interpretation, 
which  the  church,  in  every  age,  has  agreed  to  give  as  the.  true  in- 
terpretation. 

This  scheme  we  regard  as  untrue  and  dangerous  ;  derogatory  to 
the  honour  of  the  gospel,  and  injurious  to  the  best  interests  both  of 
the  Church  of  Christ  and  of  civil  society.  Again,  therefore,  our  re- 
viewer shewed  a  determination  that  the  bishop's  writings  should  not 
long  go  "  without  notes  and  coniments."  This  laudable  resolution 
was  adopted  from  an  earnest  desire  that  the  public  might  form  a 
just  opinion  on  the  trite  character  of  his  principles.  Our  comments 
were  made  in  terms  frank  and  familiar  ;  but,  we  make  bold  to  sa}'', 
gentlemanly  and  christian.  We  cannot  descend  to  the  use  of  any 
other  :  zve  cannot  forget  what  belongs  to  the  honour  ofthe  Christian 
name,  and  the  dignity  of  the  Christian  ministry.  But  while  many 
thought  that  we  had  treated  the  vehement  denunciations,  and  arro- 
gant claims  of  ihe  Bishop  of  North  Carolina  with  too  much  mildness 
and  courtesy,  that  right  reverend  Doctor  seemed  to  think  that  we 
had  been  speaking  "  evil  of  dignities,  and  were  audaciously  free 
and  bold  with  prelates  ofthe  church  ;  and  in  the  resolution  to  give 
us  a  sound  Episcopal  castigation,  he  wrote  the  extraordinary  book, 
of  which  the  extraordinarij  title  is  given  at  the  head  of  this  article. 

Our  first  purpose  on  glancing  at  this  title  page  was  to  go  no  fur- 
ther. We  had  no  inclination  to  make  ourselves  familiar  with  the 
interior  of  a  building  which  hung  out  such  a  sign  at  the  door.  But 
it  was  told  us  that  some  were  praising  the  book  in  high  terms,  and 
pronouncing  it  unanswerable.  This  induced  us  to  look  farther  : 
and  we  found  that  the  author,  besides  many  other  things  which  have 
no  bearing  on  the  great  subject  of  controversy,  in  the  vehemence 
of  his  spirit,  pushes  his  extravagant  claims  even  farther  than  before. 
We  have  therefore  compelled  ourselves  to  undertake  the  unplea- 
sant task  of  reviewing  this  work  also:  not,  we  solemnly  declare 
from  personal  feelings  or  private  motives,  but  solely  with  a  view  to 
public  interests. 

But  we  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  we  design  to  pur- 
sue the  uniform  policy  of  that  church,  of  which  we  have  the  honour 
to  be  members.  We  make  no  attack  on  Episcopalians.  Many  of 
them  are  our  highly  esteemed  friends.  We  regaid  the  evangelical 
ministers  of  that  communion  as  brethren.  On  all  that  belong  to  it 
we  can  say  from  the  heart,  "  Grace,  mercy  and  peace  be  multi- 
plied." Let  them  take  that  course  to  heaven,  which  affords  them 
the  best  helps  and  the  greatest  comforts — and  the  blessing  of  our 
common  Father  and  Lord  be  on  them. 

AH  this,  however,  under  the  full  conviction  that  the  Episcopal 
Church  may  be  fairly  separated  from  high-church  prete7isi«ns.  If, 
however,  we  have  mistaken  the  ca:^e  ;  and  this  thing  cannot  be  ; 
then  we  are  prepared  to  maintain  that  the  prevalence  of  that  church 
in  this  country  is  far,  very  far  from  being  desirable.     It  is,  never- 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence.     13 

theless,  our  deliberate  opinion,  tl)at,  while  these  obnoxious  prin- 
ciples may  creep  into  any  Society,  they  may  be  kept  apart  from  all 
really  Protestant  communions  ;  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one 
to  cause  the  separation  to  be  made  as  soon  as  possible,  whenever 
the  deleterious  mixture  takes  place. 

We  feel  the  more  bound  to  make  these  remarks,  because  bishop 
R.  has  thought  fit  to  say  that  we  have  attacked  the  Episcopal 
church,  misrepresented  her  doctrines,  and  attempted  to  excite  po- 
litical odium  against  her  members.  Now  the  Reviewer  never  en- 
tertained such  a  thought  or  purpose  in  his  life.  By  no  possibility 
can  it  be  shown  that  he  has  done  this  thing,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  principles  of  the  Episcopal  church,  and  high-church  principles 
are  identical.  When  convinced  of  this,  he  will  acknowledge  the 
charge.  The  Reviewer  then  affirm?  constantly  that  his  assault  has 
been  made  not  on- Episcopalians  but  on  high-church  principles.  He 
endeavoured  to  bring  odium  on  them,  because  he  thinks  them  odi- 
ous :  to  discredit  them,  because  he  believes  them  pernicious  both 
to  church  and  state.  He  is  conscientiously  their  determined  ene- 
my ;  and  will,  by  the  help  of  God,  to  the  latest  day  of  his  life  carry 
on  a  warfare  against  them,  whatever  name  they  may  assume,  what- 
ever guise  they  may  wear.  But  this,  so  far  from  being  hostile  to 
any  denomination  of  christians,  is  regarded  by  the  Reviewer  as  one 
of  the  strongest  proofs  he  can  give  of  friendship  for  that  ciiristianity 
which  is  common  to  all.  He  ought  to  be  believed  then,  when  he 
(declares  that  he  is  above  personal  enmity  and  selfish  or  party  pur- 
poses. The  liberal  of  every  name  will  believe  him.  Bigots  can 
no  more  conceive  of  his  feelings,  than  the  "  lean,  lanksided  miser,'' 
who  makes  mammon  his  God,  can  conceive  of  the  feelings  of  the 
iiiaii  who  finds  "  that  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive." 

Our  views  and  purposes  respecting  the  whole  matter  between 
bishop  R.  and  the  Reviewer,  may  be  vefy  briefly  expressed.  The 
New  Testament  contains  the  constitutional  principles  of  the  church: 
it  is  the  c/iar/e?*  of  our  religious  liberties.     The  Reviewer  does  not 

LIKE  THE   CONSTRUCTION  FVT  ON  THE  CONSTITUTION  BY  HIGH-CHURCH- 

MEN.  It  gives  them  a  great  deal  more  power  than  the  letter,  or 
true  spirit  of  the  instrument  conveys.  It  is  an  usurpation  which 
has  done  infinite  mischief  to  the  world.  Bishop  R.'s  mode  of  in- 
terpreting the  charter,  makes  use  of  the  dicta  of  corrupt  men  for 
sanctioning  abuses  which  crept  in  under  their  administration.  This 
whole  evil  must  be  exposed  ;  and  it  shall  be  exposed,  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  reproaches  which  anger  and  bigotry  can  heap  on  their 
objects.  The  exposition  however  shall  be  made  calmly,  kindly, 
firmly.  It  will  be  time  enough  to  boast,  however,  of  the  book  be- 
fore us,  when  it  shall  appear  that  any  thing  is  left  unanswered, 
besides  bitter  words  and  hard  sayings.  In  this  field — or  quagmire, 
rather — the  Reviewer  freely  acknowledges  that  he  is  vanquished— 
They  who  glory  in  the  triumph,  may  crown  the  victor ! 

It  may  be  as  well  here  as  any  where  else  to  notice  an  undeserved 
compliment  given  by  bishop  R.  to  his  Reviewer.  "  It  is  well 
known,"  says  he,  (pa.  30.)  '*  that  you  are  looked  up  to  as  the 
Magnus  Jlpollo  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  interest,  and  that  the 


14     Reoicw  of  Bishop  Itavenserojt^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

direction  given  to  the  opinion  of  the  readers  of  your  Magazine,  is 
implicitly  followed.  If  the  spring  then  be  poisoned  at  its  fountain, 
what  must  be  the  desolation  of  its  meanders  ?"  It  seems  to  be  a 
pity  to  spoil  this  pretty  mixture  oftiguresby  disclaiming  entirely 
both  the  honour  and  the  responsibility  here  iieaped  on  tite  Reviewer. 
We  are  not  surprised  however,  at  the  bisho|)'s  ignorance  of  the 
Presbyterian  church.  There  are  oidy  two  errors  in  this  extract, 
which  we  think  it  of  importance  to  correct.  I.  The  Reviewer  so 
far  from  being  the  JMagims  Jlpollo  of  Southern  Presbyterians,  is  no 
Apollo  at  all.  He  is  an  humble  member  of  an  association  of  men, 
at  the  feet  of  many  of  whom  he  counts  it  a  privilege,  when  the  op- 
portunity is  offered,  to  sit  as  a  learner,  while  he  rejoices  in  the  su- 
periority of  their  gifts  and  graces.  Let  not  the  bishop  lay  "the 
flattering  unction  to  his  soul,"  that  should  he  succeed  in  totally  de- 
molishing the  Reviewer,  his  warfare  will  then  be  accomplished. — 
There  are  in  our  Israel  mighty  men,  like  those  round  about  David, 
as  recorded  in  2  Sam.  xxiii,  and  among  the  least  of  these  is  the 
Reviewer, 

2.  But  secondly,  the  right  reverend  prelate  of  North  Carolina 
needs  to  be  informed  that  Presbyterians  have  never  been  given  to 
the  exercise  of  implicit  faith  in  any  being  but  God  Almighty.  Their 
principles  :  their  whole  religious  training  from  infancy  to  manhood  ; 
their  religious  discipline  in  all  its  parts,  are  utterly  at  war  with  tiiis 
submission  of  the  understanding.  And  when  bishop  R.  has  the 
happiness  of  knowing  them  as  well  as  we  do,  he  will  have  found  out 
that  they  are  a  hard  people  to  manage  ;  and  indeed  that  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  do  any  thing  with  them,  unless  by  solid  reasons  one  con- 
vinces their  understanding.  In  fact  they  are  too  independent  and 
too  conscientious,  to  be  "  calculating,"  and  "  united"  men  :  und 
among  them  every  one  pursues  pretty  much  his  own  course,  and 
leaves  it  to  others  to  pursue  theirs. 

It  is  our  purpose,  because  we  think  it  to  be  our  duty,  to  enter 
pretty  fully  into  the  matters  of  difference  between  us  and  the  right 
reverend  John  S.  Ravenscroft,  D.D.  bishop  of  the  diocese  of 
North  Carolina.  But  there  are  some  preliminaries,  which  we  wish 
our  readers  maturely  to  consider,  and  fully  to  understand,  before 
we  touch  the  main  questions  in  this  controversy.  They  lie  at  the 
foundation  of  a  correct  decision  respecting  the  whole  matter. 
They  also  show  that  the  subject  is  one  of  great  importance,  involv- 
ing our  most  valuable  rights,  and  dearest  interests.  We  shall 
therefore,  without  further  preface  or  apology,  proceed  to  treat 
them  according  to  our  views  of  their  true  character. 

When  Christianity  was  introduced  into  the  world,  it  found,  every 
where  established  by  law,  a  religion  o|){)osed  to  its  <loctrine  and 
discipline.  The  apostles  and  primitive  christians  were  Diisenfers, 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  that  term  ;  and  were  treated  both  by  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  as  hardly  as  high  churchmen  have  ever  treated  those 
who  have  borne  the  name  in  modern  times.  But  no  reproaches, 
no  dangers,  no  sufferings  moved  them.  With  a  firmness  and  fidel- 
ity worthy  of  everlasting  remembrance,  they  taught  the  doctrine, 
and  U)ifolded  the  principles  pf  discipline,  which  they  had  learned 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence.  15 

from  their  Master.  The  maxims  which  they  received,  and  deli- 
vered to  others,  uere  such  as  these.  "My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world."' — "But  be  yc  not  called  Kabbi  :  for  one  is  your  master, 
even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call  no  man  your 
father  upon  the  earth  :  for  one  is  your  father,  which  is  in  heaven. 
Neither  be  ye  called  masters  :  for  one  is  your  master,  even 
Christ.''' — "Neither  as  being  Lords  over  Cod's  heritage,  but  being 
ensamples  to  the  flock,"  &,c.  The  men  left  by  them  in  the  church- 
es, had  a  large  portion  of  their  spirit.  But  corruption  soon  began 
to  work  aniong  them.  Changes  from  good  to  bad,  and  from  bad  to 
worse  were  introduced.  A  spirit  of  domination  invaded  the  clergy. 
They  sought  eagerl3/  for  wealth  and  power,  were  but  too  success- 
ful in  their  efforts,  and  established  a  terrible  despotism  throughout 
the  christian  world.  These  are  unquestioned  fa(  ts  ;  and  we  wish 
in  the  present  number  to  assist  our  readers  in  tracing  them  to  their 
proper  causes.  Unless  they  will  take  the  trouble  to  do  this,  the 
most  instructive  portion  of  the  history  of  man  will  afJ'ord  its  warn- 
ings in  vain. 

In  accomplishing  the  object  proposed,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  nature  of  the  religion  taught  by  Christ.  Without  just  views  of 
this  subject,  we  are  contiuu.dly  in  d .mger  of  being  mislead  by  the 
fierce  and  noisy  declamation,  the  bold  assertions,  and  artful  so- 
phisms of  men,  who  wish  to  invest  themselves  with  official  dignity. 
And  here  we  cannot  help  remarking,  that  there  is  no  subject  in  re- 
lation to  which  men  in  general  so  easily  suffer  themselves  to  be 
imposed  on,  as  that  of  religion.  In  some,  there  is  an  indolence  and 
indifference,  which  allows  any  one  who  will  soothe  their  ruling  de- 
sire, to  think  for  them.  In  others,  there  is  a  sort  of  enthusiasm  or 
fanaticism,  which  offers  a  fine  subject  for  the  artful  and  designing 
to  play  on.  And  in  all  who  have  no  fixed  religious  princ  iples, 
there  is  a  proneness  to  superstition,  which  at  the  proper  time  gives 
to  the  impostor  a  powerful  hold  on  the  mind.  We  do  therefore 
think  it  oftlie  highest  importance,  that  all  should  have  just  views  of 
the  fundamental  truths  of  the  christian  religion.  It  suits  our  pur- 
pose here  only  to  lay  down  general  prinri[des. 

True  religion  consists  in  just  views  of  the  attributes  and  govern- 
ment of  Deity  ;  and  in  feelings  and  conduct  corresponding  with 
those  views.  It,  however,  will  always  be  modified  by  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  character  and  condition  of  man,  and  of  the  purposes  of 
divine  justice  and  mercy  in  relation  to  him.  This  knowledge  of 
God  and  man,  of  tiuth  and  duty,  embodied  in  due  form,  constitutes 
a  system  of  religion  ;  and  the  sentiments,  the  feelings,  the  princi- 
ples of  action,  formed  by  the  system  of  truth,  constitute  vital  and 
practical  religion.  Considered  in  this  point  of  view,  religion  is 
founded  in  the  nature  of  man.  Veneration  of  wh;it  is  august  and 
majestic  ;  awe  of  almighty  power  ;  love  of  excellence  ;  gratitude 
lownrds  a  benefactor;  a  sense  of  weakness  ;  the  feeling  of  guilt  ; 
anxiety  in  relation  to  the  future,  are  the  elements,  in  human  na- 
ture, of  that  complex  feeling  which  we  call  religion. 

The  founder  of  Christianity  introduced  a  system  in  many  impor- 
tant respects  different  from  any  that  had  ever  been  taught  before. 


16     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence, 

It  was  indeed  a  filling  up  of  the  Jewish  system  ;  but  the  additions 
made  by  him  rendered  necessary  a  very  great  change  in  the  exter- 
nal form  of  the  church.  As  a  particular  instance,  the  Jewish  reU- 
gion,  in  common  with  most  others,  bad  its  altar  and  its  priests.  But 
Christianity  has  neither.  The  proper  notion  of ;»  priest  is,  that  of  a 
person  appointed  to  make  offerings  to  God,  on  behalf  of  the  people. 
These  offerings  are  of  various  kinds  ;  and  among  them  vve  always 
find  some  of  an  expiatory  character.  But  there  is  nothing  of  all 
this  among  the  offices  to  be  performed  by  the  ministers  of  Christ's 
religion.  In  his  dispensation,  he  is  the  only  priest.  By  one  offer- 
ing of  himself,  he  hath  forever  perfected  them  that  are  sanctified. 
Since  his  death  there  has  been  no  priest  of  God's  appointment. 

Christianity,  according  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
apnstles,  consists  entirely  in  knowledge  of  the  truth,  in  affections 
corresponding  to  the  truth,  and  a  course  of  conduct  in  accordance 
n-ith  these  affections.  It  is  a  religion  of  knowledge  and  love  :  an 
homage  of  the  heart;  a  voluntary  service.  The  church  of  Christ 
is  from  the  nature  of  the  case  a  voluntary  association.  It  cannot 
be  formed  in  any  other  way.  Christ  owns  none  as  his  people,  but 
a  "willing  people."  In  the  church  then,  as  administered  according 
to  the  law  of  Christ,  there  is  no  place  for  coercive  power.  It  is 
impossible  to  make  men  christians,  except  by  reason  and  convic- 
tion. Jesus  Christ  never  thought  of  imy  other  mode.  According- 
ly, the  Society  organized  by  him  differs  widely  from  the  political 
associations  of  tliis  world.  And  the  institutions  of  the  Saviour, 
were  in  conformity  with  the  genius  of  his  religion.  The  only 
means  appointed  by  him  for  the  promotion  of  this  religion  were  af- 
fectionate teaching  and  persuasion.  He  sent  out  men,  whose  great 
business  was  to  set  truth  before  the  people,  and  persuade  them  to 
embrace  it.  This  is  the  most  dignified  and  important  work  in  the 
church  ;  the  great  object  of  the  institution  of  the  gospel   ministr3^ 

Ecclesiastical  power,  then,  is  quite  another  thing  than  high 
churchmen  have  supposed  it  to  be.  A  church,  we  have  said,  is  a 
voluntary  association  formed  on  the  great  principles  of  belief  in  the 
doctrines,  and  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ.  The  exercise  of 
power  is  limited  and  regulated  by  those  principles.  The  church 
is  bound  to  receive  all  vvho  profess  faith  and  obedience  ;  the  teach- 
ers instruct  them  more  fully  in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  their  re- 
ligion, and  persuade  them  to  obey  the  commands  of  their  Saviour. 
They  have  no  influence  but  a  moral  influence  ;  no  power  but  such 
as  truth  and  love  afford.  And  if  this  does  not  prevail,  the  church 
refuses  any  longer  to  acknowledge  fellowship  with  the  disobedient. 

These  are  the  great  principles  on  which  Jesus  Christ  founded 
his  cliurch.  The  obligation  to  be  a  member  of  it,  respects  the  au- 
thority of  God  alone  ;  and  the  demand  of  the  Almighty  is  on  the 
will  and  the  affections.  "  My  son  give  me  thy  heart."  The  whole 
polity  of  the  church,  we  repeat,  is  exactly  adapted  to  its  nature 
as  a  voluntary  society.  The  principles  of  prudence  and  common 
sense  which  apply  to  the  regulation  of  all  similar  associations,  were 
adopted  by  the  Head  of  the  Church  ;  and  such  arrangements  were 
made  for  the  preservation  of  order,  and  the  attainment  of  the  greali. 


lieviexo  of  Bishop  llavenscrofl's  Vindication  and  Defence.     1 7 

objects  in  view,  as  commend  themselves  to  the  understanding  of 
all  men. 

It  id  easy  to  see,  that  in  a  society  such  as  this,  there  is  but  little 
room  for  the  exercise  of  government,  in  the  common  acceptation  of 
the  term.  Where  the  whole  power  is  moral  power,  he,  who  most 
clearly  and  most  affectionately,  exhibits  the  truth,  and  lives  the 
most  exemplary  life,  exerts  the  greatest  influence.  So  it  was  in 
the  beginning.  The  iirst  teachers  of  Christianity  did  not  subdue 
the  world  by  blustering  and  vapouring  about  apostolical  dignity, 
and  diocesan  authority  ;  but  they  won  their  way  to  the  hearts  of 
men  by  love. 

It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  it  suited  the  wise  pur- 
poses of  the  Head  of  the  Church  gradually  to  unfold  his  system,  and 
to  appoint  men,  furnished  with  extraordinary  gifts,  to  complete  the 
work  which  he,  in  his  wisdom,  left  uniiqi^hed.  These  men  exe- 
cuted their  commission  with  exemplary  tidelity  :  and  under  the  di- 
rection of  the  Holy  Spirit,  gave  a  body  of  written  instructions,  con- 
taining the  whole  will  of  their  Lord  respecting  his  church.  This 
was  intended  to  be  the  common  rule  for  the  direction  of  all, 
whether  teachers  or  disciples. 

The  Apostles  also  left,  in  the  various  divisions  of  this  great  soci- 
ety, suitable  persons  as  teachers  of  the  new  religion  ;  whose  pro- 
vince it  also  was  to  preside  over  the  affairs  of  the  church,  accord- 
ing to  the  true  character  of  their  office,  and  the  rules  given  for  the 
regulation  of  their  conduct.  The  design  plainly  was  to  perpetuate 
the  Association  and  preserve  in  purity  the  doctrines  originally 
taught.  This  was  the  leading  object  of  the  appointment  of  church 
officers  ;  and  he  is  most  tit  to  be  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  who 
knows  most  of  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  and  has  most  of  his  spirit. 

But  while,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  christian  religion,  it  is  ex- 
pedient that  there  should  be  teachers,  the  Head  of  the  Church 
never  subjected  the  faith  of  his  disciples  to  their  spiritual  instruct- 
ors. This  is  put  beyond  all  contradiction  by  the  directions  given 
in  Scripture  to  the  whole  body  of  the  faithful : — it  is  most  evident 
too  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case. 

1.  The  directions  given  to  the  whole  body  of  christians  arc  such 
as  these — "  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit  ;  but  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  are  of  God  ;  because  many  false  prophets  are  gone 
out  into  the  world — Prove  all  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good 
— Now  1  beseech  you  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions 
and  offences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and 
avoid  them — Now  we  command  you,  brethren  ;  in  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves  from  every  bro- 
ther that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  (doctrine) 
which  ye  received  of  us — And  if  any  man  obey  not  our  word  by 
this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  company  with  him,  that  he 
may  be  ashamed."  Here  is  a  clear  acknowledgment  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment ;  and  here  the  members  of  the  church  were 
required  to  distinguish  between  true  and  false  teachers,  between 
sound  and  corrupt  doctrine.  Such  are  the  rights  and  duties  of 
christians  now.    Before  the  Canon  of  Scripture  was  formed,  the 


1 8     Review  of  Bishop  ItavenscrofV s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Apostles  themselves  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  fur- 
nished the  standard  of  truth.  But  when  they  had  committed  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  to  writing,  and  delivered  it  in  this  form  to  the 
churches,  then  Scripture  formed  the  standard  ;  and  hy  this  unerr- 
ing rule,  all  were  to  try  the  spirits,  and  detect  false  doctrine. 

2.  It  appears  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  that  /nen  must 
either  judge  for  themselves,  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  or  have 
an  infidlible  human  guide.  If  we  should  be  persuailed  hy  the  very 
mild,  courtly  and  dignified  language  of  the  right  reverend  doctor 
John  S.  Ravenscroft,  to  put  ourselves  under  the  direction  of  his  holy 
apostolical  church,  wdl  he  answer  for  us  in  the  day  of  judgment  ; 
will  he,  can  he  take  our  place  at  the  dread  tribunal  I  If  not,  what 
will  be  the  consequence  if  we  embrace  false  doctrine,  and  in  con- 
formity to  it,  live  an  unholy  life  ?  The  church  can  err,  for  it  has 
erred.  Will  the  guilt  be  charged  on  the  church,  and  fivour  be 
shown  to  us  ?  Clearly  every  mm  must  answer  for  himself  before 
God  ;  and  therefore  every  man  "  must  be  fully  persuaded  in  his 
own   mind." 

These  were  the  principles  of  the  primitive  church.  They  were 
taught  by  the  Apostles  and  received  by  their  converts.  The  first 
ministers  did  not  pretend  that  they  held  a  higher  office  than  that  of 
teachers.  And  they  were  surrounded  by  a  body  of  atfectionate, 
confiding  disciples.  There  was  no  assumption  of  power  or  pre- 
eminence among  them  ;  there  was  no  order  of  priesthood  ;  no  mys- 
terious rites  ;  no  pretended  charm  in  sacraments  ;  no  incompre- 
hensible virtue  in  ordinances  as  administered  by  one  particular 
class  of  men;  but  all  was  plain  and  intelligible.  In  a  word,  the 
church  was  a  voluntary  association  organized  in  its  simplest  forms. 
And  while  it  continued  thus,  Christianity  grew  and  flourished.  Its 
moral  influence  was  too  mighty  for  philosophy,  priestcraft,  arbitra- 
ry power,  and  prevailing  corruption  combined.  But  in  process  of 
time  there  was  a  mournful  change.  "The  abomination  of  desola- 
tion" was  seen  in  the  holy  place.  The  ministers  of  Christianity 
became  proud,  luxurious,  and  avaricious;  and  the  church  of  Christ 
a  theatre  for  the  display  of  the  most  .  orrupt  passions  of  the  human 
heart.  This  sad  change  it  is  our  pamful  duty  to  trace  to  its  causes  : 
our  only  consolation  is  that  the  work  is  full  of  important  instruction. 

We  shall  therefore  proceed,  in  discharge  of  the  duty  vvhich  we  have 
assigned  ourselves,  to  notice  some  of  the  most  striking  and  disas- 
trous changes  which  were  produced  in  the  form  and  doctrine  of  the 
church.  But  there  is  one  remark,  which  we  previously  offer  to 
the  most  serious  consideration  of  our  readers.  If  religion  is  ever 
permitted  to  travel  out  of  its  proper  sphere,  and  mingle  with  po- 
litical concerns,  one  of  two  things  is  sure  to  happen  ;  either  reli- 
gion gains  the  ascendency  over  the  civil  power,  and  there  is  erected  a 
fearful  ecclesiastical  tyranny  ;  or,  the  state  is  obliged,  for  the  preven- 
tion of  this  evil,  to  purchase  an  alliance  with  the  church,  and  take  the 
ministers  of  religion  into  its  pay,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  their 
subserviency. 

We  wish  to  offer  an  additional  observation  :  the  only  power,  as 
we  have  said,  that  properly  belongs  to  the  church,  is  moral  pon-cr  : 


Review  of  Bishop  UavemcroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence.    19 

it  is  the  influence  which  the  wise  and  good  exert  on  their  fellow 
men.  This  influence  is  greatest,  where  the  community  is  enlight- 
ened and  virtuous.  But  an  ignorant  population  is  always  prone  to 
superstition  and  fanaticism  ;  and  atTords  a  full  opportunity  for  the 
attainment  and  exercise  of  undue  ecclesiastical  power.  Now  reli- 
gion has  respect  to  the  greatest  of  all  beings,  and  the  dearest  of  all 
interests  ;  it  therefore  takes  a  most  powerful  hold  on  the  human 
heart,  and  brings  its  uncontrolable  energies  to  bear  on  all  human 
concerns.  Its  influence  is  irresistible.  I(,  however,  deserves 
most  serious  consideration,  that  religion  may  be  false  as  well  as 
true  ;  and  that  the  power  of  the  former,  though  far  dilTerent  in  its 
effects,  is  as  mighty  as  that  of  the  latter.  Superstition  and  fanati- 
cism are  the  storms  and  tornadoes  of  the  moral  world,  which  mark 
their  way  with  desolation  and  ruin.  The  unreasonable  dread  of 
supernatural  beings  may  be  as  strong  as  filial  fear  of  the  deity  :  the 
cowardice  of  guilt,  and  the  stings  of  remorse  render  men  as  prompt 
to  submit  to  severe  penances,  as,  under  the  dictates  of  an  enlight- 
ened conscience,  they  are  to  discharge  their  duty  to  God  and  man. 

According  to  these  remarks,  a  faithful  and  enlightened  ministry 
of  the  gospel  always  desires  to  promote  learning  and  science  among 
the  people  ;  while  men  of  aspiring  views  and  sinister  motives,  whose 
aim  is  to  lord  it  over  God's  heritage,  are  well  content  that  the  peo- 
ple should  remain  incapable  of  judging  for  themselves.  And  it  de- 
serves to  be  remembered,  that  during  the  changeful  periods  which 
we  are  now  about  to  bring  under  a  brief  review,  the  population  of 
the  Roman  empire,  and  of  the  nations  which  grew  out  of  it,  was 
such  as  just  suited  the  purposes  of  ambitious  and  worldly-minded 
men,  whose  great  object  was  to  raise  the  church  above  all  other 
power,  and  accumulate  in  its  coffers  the  wealth  of  the  world. — 
They  were  ignorant  of  religion,  and  excessively  superstitious, 
often  mingling  ferocious  cruelty,  ardent  devotion,  and  unbounded 
generosity,  in  a  manner  truly  strange  and  surprising.  Among  these 
people,  such  changes  as  the  following  were  produced  in  a  few  cen- 
turies. 

1.  In  the  beginning  the  clergy  were  teachers  of  religion,  surround- 
ed by  a  body  of  affectionate  disciples,  who  looked  up  to  them  for 
instruction.  They  had  no  influence  or  power  but  that  derived  from 
the  humility,  the  benevolence,  the  purity  of  their  character,  and 
their  superior  knowledge  of  the  religion  which  they  taught.  They 
pretended  no  persomd  authority  ;  "rio  dignity  of  rank  or  order;  and 
claimed  reverence  only  for  the  truth  which  they  announced  ;  and 
that,  not  because  they  announced  it,  but  because  tior>  had  revealed  it. 
In  a  word  they  were  oflicers  in  a  voluntary  association,  chosen  by 
the  people  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  church,  and  responsible  for 
their  conduct. 

But  in  process  of  time  they  came  to  be  God's  agents,  deriving  all 
their  power  from  Him  through  their  predecessors,  and  accountable 
to  him  alone.  They  alone  were  authorized  to  expound  the  truth  ; 
and  men  were  obliged  to  believe  it,  because  it  came  from  them  as 
God's  ambassadors.  The  sacraments  were  seals  of  the  truth,  be- 
cause they  were  administered  by  these  divinely  authorized  agents. 
3 


20     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft's  Findication  and  Defence. 

Through  them  alone  could  men  receive  the  assurance  of  forgiveness 
and  of  eternal  life.  They  were  empowered  to  transmit  by  imposi- 
tion of  their  hands  a  character,  which  none  could  ever  take  away, 
and  by  which  others  could  perform  these  same  wonderful  works. 
They  assumed  to  be  priests,  and  held  themselves  authorized  by 
divine  appointment  to  offer  sacred  things  to  God,  on  behalf  of  the 
people,  which  were  acceptable  to  the  divine  majesty  simply  because 
thus  offered.  This  was  carried  so  far,  that  the  virtue  of  any  ad- 
ministration was  made  to  depend  on  the  intention  of  the  priest.  If 
he  designed  to  administer  a  sacrament,  it  was  a  sacrament  ;  other- 
wise not ! 

There  was  also  a  very  great  change  in  the  temporal  affairs  of  the 
ministers  of  religion.  In  the  beginning,  they  were  dependent  on 
the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  people  for  si]p[)ort ;  but  in  pro- 
cess of  time  they  became  rich:  at  first  they  looked,  as  all  other  citi- 
zens did,  to  the  state  for  protection,  and  thought  themselves  happy 
when  they  escaped  persecution  ;  but  afterwards  they  claimed  ex- 
emption from  civil  authority,  and  often  bearded  tl)e  proudest  rulers 
in  their  halls  ofstate  :  while  they  retained  the  spirit  of  their  master, 
they  delighted  to  preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor  ;  but  in  after  times, 
they  sought  to  be  counsellors  and  courtiers  in  royal  palaces. 

2.  The  Rites  of  the  church  as  prescribed  by  Jesus  Christ,  were 
ievi.,  simple  and  intelligible,  administered  in  the  phsinost  manner, 
and  with  no  appearance  vvhatever  of  show  and  parade.  i  here 
were  only  two  Sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  :  No 
peculiar  sanctity  was  attributed  to  place^^  ;  but  wherever  a  body  of 
christians  met,  whetiier  in  a  private  house,  a  cave,  or  a  wilderness, 
there  was  a  place  for  the  worship  of  the  living  God.  Hence  there 
were  none  of  the  mummeries  of  consecrating  burying  grounds,  and 
bells,  and  vestments  and  chalices,  and  tlie  brick  and  mortar  of 
houses,  which  prevailed  in  after  times.  There  were  no  priests, 
with  their  mitres  and  robes,  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  pontifical- 
dignity  ;  but  men  of  simple  manners  and  simple  apparel  ofliciated 
as  teachers  of  their  brethren. 

But  in  all  these  things  changes  v.'ere  introduced,  of  which  the 
manifest  design  was  to  increase  the  power  and  splendour  of  the 
clergy.  The  sacraments  were  multiplied  from  two  to  seven  :  they 
were  made  necessary  to  salvation  ;  were  connected  with  all  the 
business  of  life  ;  and  made  to  reach  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave. 
-BopZism  not  only  brought  the  subject  into  the  school  of  Christ,  to 
be  taught  his  doctrine  ;  but  also,  wheji  duly  administered ^  conterred 
grace  and  effected  regeneration  ;  while  without  it,  the  hapless  in- 
fant was  doomed  to  perdition  !  And  what  added  greatly  to  the  mis- 
chief here,  it  was  held,  as  also  in  relation  to  the  other  sacraments, 
that  the  grace  was  not  conferred  unless  the  priest  intended  it :  so 
that  if  one  wished  to  save  his  own  soul  or  that  of  his  child  from 
endless  ruin,  he  must  keep  in  favour  with  his  priest  !  ! 

After  Baptism  came  confirmation,  a  sacrament  contrived  to  sup- 
ply any  defects  that  might  have  existed  in  the  admini^fiation  of 
baptism,  intended  to  bestow  more  grace,  and  certify  those  v\ho  had 
been  renewed  by  baptism  of  the  favour  and  gracious  goodness  of 
God  towards  them. 


Review  of  Bishop  Kavenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence.    21 

But  it  is  possible  for  all  this  grace  to  be  lost;  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  need  of  any  sacrament  but  baptism.  To  provide  for 
this  case  then,  it  is  pretended  that  our  Lord,  after  his  resurrection, 
instituted  ihe  sacrament  of  penance,  ulien  he  breathed  on  his  disci- 
ples, and  said  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Spirit;  whose  sins  soever  ye 
remit  they  are  remitted  unto  them;  and  whose  soever  ye  retain 
they  are  retained  !"  By  vvhich  words  it  is  pretended  that  the  apos- 
tles, and  their  legitimate  successors  received  power  to  remit  sins, 
and  reconcile  believers  who  might  fall  into  sin  after  baptism.  The 
power  of  administering  this  sacrament,  and  of  course,  of  conferring 
the  grace  here  necessary,  belongs  to  bishops  and  priests  alone. 
Here  then  according  to  the  doctrines  received,  the  poor  sinner  is  at 
the  mercy  of  his  priest;   he  must  receive  absolution  or  be  lost ! 

In  the  beginning,  the  Lord^s  Supper  was  regarded  as  an  ordinance 
in  which  the  death  of  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin  was  commemo- 
rated; the  faith  of  the  believer  was  strengthened,  and  his  love  in- 
flamed, by  paitaking  of  bread  and  wine,  as  symbols  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood.  But  by  gradual  additions,  this  plain  and  simple  rite  was 
made  the  greatest  of  all  mysteries,  and  the  grossest  of  all  absurdi- 
ties. The  duly  authorized  priest  was  empowered  by  the  magic  of 
episcopal  ordination,  to  convert  the  bread  used  into  the  body  and 
blood,  tlie  soul  and  divinity  of  the  Saviour.  And  any  sinner  who, 
could  satisfy  the  priest  of  his  repentance,  and  induce  him  to  ad- 
minister the  ordinance,  was  sure  of  salvation,  at  any  rate  until  the 
bread  sliould  be  digested  !  It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  these  par- 
ticulars fartlier.  The  church,  by  pronouncing  matrimony  a  sacra- 
ment, took  that  important  rite  entirely  into  its  own  hands,  and  by 
various  canons  greatly  increased  the  power  of  the  clergy.  The  de- 
cisions respecting  ordination  were  well  suited  to  bind  the  clergy 
together  in  one  body,  and  diffuse  among  them  the  same  spirit. 
And  the  sacrament  of  extreme  unction  enabled  the  priest,  at  the  last 
hour,  to  bring  the  dying  sinner  to  his  own  terms. 

3.  The  vehole  worship  of  the  primitive  church,  was  characterized 
by  extreme  simplicity.  It  was  manifest  that  the  great  object  was  to 
carry  truth  directly  to  the  understanding,  and  by  this  means  as  pow- 
erfully as  possible  to  affect  the  heart.  But  in  the  progress  of  this  great 
change  which  we  are  considering,  the  houses  of  worship  were  made  to 
rival  royal  palaces;  the  ministers  of  the  church  were  as  numerous  as 
the  servants  of  a  king;  paintings,  and  statues,  gold  and  silver  ves- 
sels, various  and  most  costly  instruments  of  music,  scarlet  and  pur- 
jjle  and  tine  linen,  and  all  things  magnificent  and  expensive  were 
employed  to  give  splendour  to  divine  worship,  and  cause  a  strong 
impression  to  be  made  on  the  senses.  Hence  throughout  the 
church,  there  was  but  little  knowledge  of  the  truth,  little  spiritual 
service,  little  vital  piety.  Worship  was  a  show  to  entertain  the 
people.  Even  prayer  was  offered  in  an  unknown  tongue;  because 
forsooth,  the  minister  was  a  priest  whose  business  it  was  to  ofler 
holy  things  to  God  ;  and  the  laity  had  nothing  to  do  but  confide  their 
cause  to  the  hands  of  their  priests.  The  Bible  was  never  quoted  in 
the  vernacular  language,  because,  it  being  the  business  of  the 
church  to  interpret  the  word  of  God,  the  people  had  nothing  to  do 
but  believe  what  their  priests  told  them. 


22     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl's  Vindicalioti  and  Defence. 

4.  The  Church  of  Christ  in  the  beginning,  was  as  we  have  seen,  a 
voluntary  association,  made  up  of  all  who  had  been  convinced  of 
the  truth,  and  had  felt  the  power  of  the  Christian  religion.  It  had 
nothing  to  do  with  any  matters  of  civil  or  political  regulation.  It 
rendered  to  Caesar  the  things  that  were  Caesar's,  and  to  God  the 
things  that  were  God's.  Not  an  instance  can  be  shown  of  any  in- 
termeddling with  afl'airs  of  stale  by  Christ  or  his  apostles.  They 
confined  themselves  entirely  to  matters  of  religion. 

But  in  about  three  centuries  the  church  became  an  ally  of  the 
state;  and  owned  the  authority  of  the  civil  ruler  in  afiiiirs  of  con- 
science. This  elevation  in  temporal  dignity,  however,  was  only  a 
stepping  stone  for  ambitious  prelates.  They  aimed  at  uncontroled 
supremacy  in  church  and  state,  and  succeeded  in  their  daring  pro- 
jects. Charles  the  Bald,  grandson  of  Charlemagne,  was  deposed 
by  an  assembly  of  bishops:  his  subjects  were  released  from  their 
allegiance;  and  his  kingdom  was  transferred  to  another.  This  de- 
generate prince  made  no  objection  to  their  authority,  but  only  com- 
plained that  "he  had  not  been  heard  and  judged  by  the  bishops, 
through  whose  ministry  he  had  been  consecrated,  who  are  called 
the  thrones  of  God,  in  which  God  sitteth,  and  by  whom  he  dispen- 
ses his  judgments;  to  whose  paternal  chastisement  I  was  willing. 
says  he,  to  submit,  and  do  still  submit  myself." 

The  power  of  the  bishops  excited  the  envy  of  the  pope, 
and  the  court  of  Rome  set  itself  to  lessen  their  influence,  and  to 
raise  itself.  In  the  ninth  century  the  bishops  bad  exalted  them- 
selves to  the  highest  pitch  of  grandeur  and  power.  The  policy 
and  art  of  the  sovereign  pontiffs  were  successful  in  reducing  them, 
and  concentrating  in  themselves  a  great  part  of  the  influence  which 
had  been  diffused  among  the  prelates.  In  no  period  of  the  world 
and  by  no  body  of  men  has  there  ever  been  a  greater  display  of  con- 
summate sagacity,  than  was  evinced  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  cen- 
tury by  the  court  of  Rome.  That  system  of  ecclesiastical  domina- 
tion, which  goes  under  the  name  of  popery,  is  a  stupendous  contri- 
vance of  human  genius.  The  plan  was  steadily  pursued  by  one 
pope  after  another;  and  at  length  it  was  thought  safe  to  use  such 
language  as  the  following:  "As  the  sun  and  j;he  moon  are  placed  in 
the  firmament,  the  greater  as  the  light  of  the  day,  and  the  lesser  of 
the  night;  thus  there  are  two  powers  in  the  church:  the  pontifical, 
which,  as  having  the  charge  of  souls  is  the  greater;  and  the  royal, 
which  is  the  less,  and  to  which  the  bodies  of  men  only  are  trusted." 

We  wish  our  readers  to  consider  this  subject  most  carefully.  Let 
them  take  the  New  Testament,  and  Ibrm  a  clear,  distinct  idea  of 
religion  as  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  of  the  church  as 
organized  by  them:  and  then  let  them  contemplate  that  monstrous 
picture,  of  which  we  have  given  the  outline.  What  instance  in  all 
the  annals  of  the  world,  can  be  produced,  of  similar  perversion  and 
corruption?  How  was  this  melancholy  change  wrought?  This  sub- 
ject deserves  most  serious  inquiry?  For  the  man  of  sin  is  not  yet 
destroyed.  The  evil  is  not  yet  eradicated.  There  is  enough  igno- 
rance, and  superstition  on  one  side;  and  enough  ambition  and  love 
of  the  world  on  the  other,  to  afford  great  opportunities  of  mischief. 
And  undue  pretensions  ought  always  to  be  marked  and  resisted. 


Review  of  Bishnpllavenscrojfs  Vindication  and  Defence.    23 

In  the  sequel  of  this  number,  we  shall  present  a  general  view  of 
the  causes  which  produced  the  deterioration  of  the  church,  and 
turned  the  greatest  of  God's  blessings  into  the  most  enormous  of  all 
abuses. 

1.  The  first  of  these  in  order,  we  place  under  the  head  of  Tra- 
dition. Jesus  Christ,  as  has  already  been  remarked,  for  wise  pur- 
poses, appointed  men  to  complete  the  organization  of  the  church. 
These  men  were  furnished  with  extraordinary  powers,  to  qualify 
them  for  their  work.  It  belonged  to  them  authoritatively  to  deli- 
ver the  will  of  their  master.  Divinely  inspired  teachers,  they  af- 
forded to  all  believers  while  they  lived,  an  infallible  standard  of 
truth.  And  it  was  very  natural  that  the  cfuirches,  which  they  had 
planted,  should  recur  to  the  body  of  instruction  received  from  the 
apostles,  and  tell  others  what  they  had  heard  from  these  holy  men. 
This  indeed  was  necessary,  until  the  writings  left  by  the  first  teach- 
ers of  Christianity,  were  put  into  the  hands  of  believers.  Thus 
was  formed  the  habit  ot  inquiring  from  those  who  heard  the  Apos- 
tles, what  they  had  taught  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  salva- 
tion. Information  communicated  in  this  way  is  called  tradition.  It 
is  a  very  imperfect  mode  of  preserving  and  transmitting  truth;  as  is 
manifest  from  this;  that  although  the  Apostles  had  the  fullest  oppor- 
tunity of  hearing  the  whole  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were 
preserved  from  error  by  the  inspiration  ofthe  Holy  Spirit.  Every 
one  knows  how  a  story  will  grow,  in  passing  through  a  few  hands. 
Reports  concerning  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Christ,  were  thus 
spread  and  exaggerated.  The  same  thing  happened  in  the  case  of 
the  Apostles:  Men  of  weak  judtcment  and  lively  imagination  from  a 
traditionary  hint  or  two,  can  construct  a  long  narrative  which  they 
easily  persuade  themselves  to  believe,  and  repeat  to  others  as  un- 
questionable truth.  .  Thus  there  was  gradually  formed  a  body  of 
traditions,  vvhich  grew  with  succeeding  ages,  and  was  invested  with 
authority  equal  to  tliat  ofthe  scriptures.  So  that  when  the  tvord 
of  God  tailed  to  decide  a  question,  respecting  which  the  church 
wanted  a  decision,  recourse  was  had  to  tradition.  Often,  there 
were  opposing  traditions,  and  tne  church  deuideil  which  was  most 
worthy  of  credit.  The  Jews  had  tried  this  method  before.  It  was 
pretended  by  their  Ral)bins,  that  besides  the  written  law,  Moses  had 
received  an  oral  comuiuniorition  from  God,  which  he,  in  turn,  made 
to  Joshua,  and  so  on  through  successive  centuries,  until  at  last  it  was 
reduced  to  writing,  and  preserved  in  a  number  of  ponderous  folios. 
By  this  body  of  traflitions  all  questions  among  tlie  Jews  are  deter- 
mined to  this  day.  Christians,  at  an  early  period,  began  to  try  the 
same  expedient;  and  aposioliral  tradition  soon  acquired  great  influ- 
ence in  the  church.  At  length  it  was  put  on  a  level  with  holy- 
scripture.  It  is  so  regarded  at  this  day  by  all  good  catholics;  and 
many  a  protestant  is  so  trammeled  by  it,  that  although  he  admits 
the  supremacy  of  scripture,  he  is  afraid  to  say  what  the  Bible  means 
until  he  learns  how  the  fitliers  interpreted  it. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  is  the  worst  of  all  methods  of  preserving 
the  truth;  and  that  among  ignorant,  credulous,  and  super-titious  peo- 
ple, it  opens  wide  the  door  for  every  sort  of  error  and  abuse. 


i:4     Review  of  lihhnp  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence, 

2.  After  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  their  writings  formed  the 
standard  of  Christian  truth.  During  their  life,  the  church  was  pre- 
served free  from  iinportiint  errors,  'i'he  abettors  of  heresy  and 
schism  were  put  down  by  their  decisive  authority.  But  when  they 
were  out  of  the  way,  heretics  as  well  as  the  orthodox  could  pretend 
apostolical  trathtion.  Nothing  could  ensure  purity  of  doctrine  and 
soundness  in  the  faith,  but  recurrence  to  the  authenticated  writings 
of  the  Apostles.  And  nothing;  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the 
preservation  of  the  true  doctrine,  depends  on  the  right  interpreta- 
tion of  the  oracles  of  God.  The  real  meaning  of  the  sacred  writings 
can  alone  enable  us  to  judge  what  true  Christianity  is.  This  being 
undeniably  true,  we  assign,  as  one  povverful  cause  of  the  corrup- 
tion of  Christianity,  the  fact  that  the  early  fathers  were  wretched  ex- 
positors of  Scripture.  This  declaration  may  startle  some  of  our 
readers.  But  we  have,  at  hand,  most  abundant  evidence  of  its 
truths  and  in  the  sequel  of  this  Review  will  produce  it,  to  the  full 
conviction  of  every  impartial  mind.  Our  purpose,  at  present,  is  to 
state  the  fact  with  proper  distinctions,  that  all  may  judge  for  them- 
selves of  its  influence  in  the  corruption  of  Christianity.  Let  it  then 
be  understood,  that  we  tuUy  admit  that  the  disciples  of  the  Apostles 
learned  from  them,  what  true  religion  is;  and  that,  in  the  beginning, 
there  were  brief  symbols  of  faith,  containing  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  and  received  by  all  who  were  admitted  into 
the  church.  The  fathers  too  were  generally  honest  and  good  men, 
who  believed  the  facts  to  which  they  gave  their  testimony.  But 
a  distinction  ought  to  be  made  between  their  testimony  respecting  doc- 
trine, and  their  interpretation  of  scripture.  When  they  declare  that  a 
particular  doctrine  was  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  it  ought  to  be 
admitted  that  such  was  thf^ir  belief;  and  their  testimony  is  to  be  re- 
ceived as  evidence,  according  to  their  means  of  knowing  the  fact. 
But  their  expositions  of  scripture  are  to  be  judged  of  according  to  the 
known  laws  of  language,  and  the  established  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  right  reverend  Doctor,  whose  work  has  furnished  a  Re- 
view for  these  dogdays,  does  not  appear  ever  to  have  thought  of  this; 
but  constantly  speaks  as  though  he  really  believed,  that  the  fathers 
received  and  handed  down  the  interpretation  given  by  the  Apostles  to 
their  own  writings.  So  at  least  we  understand  him.  But  they 
do  no  such  thing.  They  attempt  to  interpret  scripture,  just  as  men 
of  their  stamp  do  at  the  present  day.  They  mystify,  and  allegorize 
so  as  to  make  of  scripture  a  perfect  "nose  of  wax,"  which  one  may 
put  into  any  shape,  or  turn  in  any  direction  that  pleases  his  fancy. 
Even  the  most  learned  among  them  were  strangely  misled  by  Jew- 
ish fooleries.  Their  exegetical  writings  opened  the  way  for  many 
extravagant  opinions,  and  many  corruptions  of  christian  doctrine. 
Their  allegories,  and  wild  speculations  bewildered  the  minds  of  the 
people  in  former  times;  and  a  childish  reverence  for  every  thing 
ancient  gives  them  no  small  currency  in  the  present  day.  The  in- 
fluence of  this  evil  may  be  very  clearly  presented  by  a  familiar 
illustration.  The  nature  and  form  of  our  government  are  express- 
ed in  a  written  constitution.  The  framers  of  that  constitution,  in- 
tended by  the  words  of  which  it  is  composed  to  express  a  certain 


Jleview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt' s  Vindication  and  Defence.    25 

and  definite  meaning:  it  was  their  design  to  give  the  government  so 
much  power  and  no  more,  and  to  secure  their  rights  to  the  people. 
Now,  as  long  as  they  vvlio  administer  the  government,  give  to  the 
constitution  the  meaning  which  its  tVamers  had  when  they  wrote  it, 
exercising  precisely  the  powers  bestowed  on  them  and  no  others; 
and  acknowledging  all  the  rights  of  the  people;  the  constitution  is 
maintained  in  its  purity.  But  when  a  different  construction  is  put 
on  the  national  charter;  when  the  administration  exercises  powers 
not  conferred,  and  withholds  chartered  rights,  the  actual  character 
of  the  government  is  changed,  although  its  frame  may  remain  unal- 
tered. So  when  the  true  meaning  of  scripture  is  not  given;  but 
another  that  never  was  in  the  minds  of  the  sacred  writers,  religion 
is  perverted,  and  the  church  becomes  corrupt.  This  was  the  case 
in  former  times;  not  suddenly,  but  as  commonly  happens  by  gradu- 
al changes. 

These  observations  have  been  made  to  account  for  the  fact,  that 
although  christians  had  in  the  Bible  an  infallible  standard  of  reli- 
gious truth,  yet  corruption  soon  began  to  show  itself  in  the  church, 
and  spread  in  various  forms,  until  the  pure  and  sim{>le  gospel  of 
Christ  was  buried  under  a  monstrous  mass  of  error.  The  true 
meaning  of  the  Bible  was  not  set  before  the  understandings  of  the 
people.  The  standard  of  truth  was  not  applied  to  the  regulation  of 
human  opinions.  And  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  men  professing 
Christianity,  should  hold  unchristian  sentiments,  and  pursue  un- 
clirislian  practices. 

'3.  The  next  general  cause  of  corruption  was,  ignorance  of  true 
religion,  and  a  predisposition  to  superstition.  'Jhe  vvliole  world 
was  divided  into  Christians,  Jews  aitd  Pagans.  Of  the  ignorance  of 
the  two  last  classes  none  can  entertain  a  doubt.  As  for  christians, 
they  cannot  be  made  well  acquainted  with  their  religion  by  a  sum- 
mary of  faith,  such  as  the  Apostles'  Creed  as  it  is  called.  It  is  ne- 
cessary that  they  should  carefully  study  the  Bible  ;  learn  its  true 
meaning,  and  carry  its  doctrines  and  precepts  to  their  understand- 
ings and  hearts.  But  the  wretched  system  of  allegorizing  and  mys- 
tifying was  much  in  vogue.  The  people  understood  the  scriptures 
poorly,  many  had  not  christian  knowledge  enough  to  banish  entire- 
ly from  tlieir  minds  pagan  notions,  previously  imbibed.  But  when 
men  have  no  well  settled  principles  of  religion,  they  are  always 
prone  to  superstition.  And  so  it  was  with  thousands  who  profess- 
ed religion  in  former  times. 

These  evils  were  greatly  increased,  when  the  northern  barba- 
rians made  their  irruption^Mnto  the  homan  empire.  These  sava- 
ges changed  their  religion  without  any  change  of  heart;  retained 
their  superstitious  feelings,  but  directed  them  to  new  objects  ; 
drove  before  them  the  Caesars  with  all  their  legions,  but  trembled 
in  the  presence  of  the  prfests  of  the  new  religion.  No  state  of 
things  could  afford  titter  opportunities  for  designing  men  to  prac- 
tice on  the  people. 

4.  It  has  been  before  observed  that  when  Christianity  was  intro- 
duced into  the  world,  it  every  where  found  some  form  of  religion 
or  other  established  by  law.     The  uncompromising  spirit  of  chri?- 


;:di    Review  of  ISis/iop  liavenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defaur. 

tianity,  soon  drew  down  on  itself  severe  and  bloody  persecution. 
This  was  renewed  in  several  successive  centuries.  The  church, 
however,  was  like  the  bush  which  Moses  saw  in  the  wilderness  ;  in 
flames,  yet  unconsuraed.  It  grew  and  spread  in  spite  of  all  oppo- 
sition. At  length  it  became  so  numerous  and  powerful,  that  an 
ambitious  man  thought  it  would  serve  his  purposes  to  di.splace  hea- 
thenism as  the  religion  of  the  state,  and  employ  Christianity  in  its 
room.  This,  however,  was  not  done,  until  the  church  had  learned 
by  sore  experience  what  power  was  posj^essed  by  a  religion  con- 
nected with  the  government.  This  experience,  acquired  under 
persecutions  rai.^ed  by  the  established  religion  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, may,  then,  be  set  down  among  the  causes  of  the  corruption  of 
Christianity.  It  made  the  church  willing  to  form  a  very  injurious 
connexion  with   the  worhl. 

5.  This  leads  us  to  state  as  another  cause  of  corruption,  the  es- 
tablishment of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  Roman  empire,  in 
place  of  heathenism.  'J'he  state  was  bound  not  only  to  protect  but 
support  this  new  ally.  I'he  ministers  of  Clirist  then  found  them- 
selves in  courts  and  palaces,  the  counsellors  of  royalty  ;  wealth 
and  honour  were  poured  on  them  instead  of  poverty  and  reproach. 
Ambitious  and  corrupt  men  were  tempted  to  seek  the  ofhces  of 
christian  bishops,  and  the  whole  church  felt  the  change.  About 
this  time,  too,  great  divisions  took  place  among  christians.  The 
wrong  principles  of  interpretation,  of  which  we  spoke  before,  had 
destroyed  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  It  was  perverted  by  a  mis- 
named philosophy,  as  well  as  by  strained  allegories,  and  extrava- 
gant spiritualizing.  Men  undertook,  for  instance,  to  decide  on  the 
person  of  Christ  by  reasoning,  and  not  by  the  plain  facts  recorded 
in  scripture.  The  sublilties  of  logic  were  opposed  by  expositions 
of  scripture,  which  could  satisfy  no  one.  Great  heats  and  violent 
contentions  arose.  The  Arian  faction  nearly  divided  the  church. 
Civil  rulers  entered  into  these  disputes.  The  edicts  of  emperors 
decided  theological  controversies.  Every  effort  was  made  by  both 
orthodox  and  heretics  to  gain  the  Ruler  to  their  side.  Some- 
times one  party  prevaiU;d  and  soinetime.s  the  other.  The  intrigue, 
the  tlattery  and  corruption  of  the  court  were  found  in  tiip  church. 
In  four  centuries  a  most  ftMrful  change  had  taken  place  in  the  pure 
and  benevolent  religion  of  Christ. 

But  all  this  did  not  occur  without  a  considerable  change  in  the 
form  of  the  church.  In  the  beginning,  religious  societies  liad  been 
established  in  the  citie.«,  and  "Elders  ordained  in  every  church  ;" 
whose  simple  business  was  to  te.ich  the'^iuths  of  ch-rlstianity,  and 
persuade  men  to  live  holy  lives.  When  the  number  of  christians 
was  too  great  for  them  to  meet  in  one  place,  several  pastors  or 
bishops  were  appointefl  for  their  spiritual  instruction,  as  was  the 
cjse  at  Philippi  and  at  Ephesus.  As  Christianity  grew,  the  church- 
es were  enlarged,  and  the  influence  of  the  pastors  increased.  And 
the  changes  of  which  we  have  spoken,  gave  opportunities  of  which 
they  were  not  slow  to  avail  them.selves.  'Jhen  it  was,  that  extrav- 
agant pretensions  vveie  put  in,  and  urged  with  great  perseverance 
and  policy.     The  teachers  of  Christianity  saw  that  wealth  and  pow- 


Heviexv  of  Bishop  Ravcnscroft^s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence.  27 

ei-  were  within  their  reach.  Ignorance  of  true  religion  and  super- 
stition opened  the  way  for  them,  and  they  found  it  easy  to  invent 
phiusible  reasons,  and  produce  authorities  to  justify  their  claims  : 
tradition  and  the  licentious  interpretation  of  scripture  afforded 
ample  means  for  proving  every  thing  that  could  be  desired.  For, 
instance,  Jesus  Christ,  as  we  have  seen,  employed  the  apostles  to 
complete  the  organization  of  the  church.  They  acted  for  him,  and 
authoritatively  announced  his  will.  The  aspiring  pastors  pretend- 
ed that  they  had  succeeded  to  the  apostolical  office,  and  possessed 
apostolical  authority. 

This  step  prepared  the  way  for  another.  The  apostles  by  their 
extraordinary  endowments,  were  enabled  to  make  decisions  which 
should  bind  the  conscience.  The  spirit  of  Christ  spake  through 
them.  They  vvho  claimed  the  succession,  asserted  similar  authori- 
ty ;  they  had  received  apostolical"  traditions  ;  the  scriptures  were 
committed  to  them  lo  be  expounded  to  the  people  ;  and  it  was  the 
business  of  the  people  to  receive  the  law,  at  the  hands  of  Christ's 
ambassadors. 

The  next  step  in  this  usurpation,  was  to  claim  the  priesthood. 
This  was  done  by  applying  to  the  church  and  its  ministers,  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament  respecting  the  Theocracy,  and  the 
abolished  service  of  the  Temple.  In  this  vvay,  the  ignorant  and  su- 
perstitious multitude  were  made  to  believe  that  their  preachers 
were  appointed  to  offer  services  to  God  on  their  behalf,  which 
were  acceptable,  because  they  who  officiated  bore  the  priestly  of- 
fice. 

This  was  particularly  the  case  in  regard  to  the  rites  of  the 
church.  They  were  made  effic;icious  in  conferring  grace,  by  vir- 
tue of  some  peculiar  authority  vested  in  the  priesthood  ;  and  gave 
assurance  of  salvation  because  they  were  administered  by  men  duly 
authorized.  * 

The  possession  of  this  enormous  power  was  one  of  the  most 
mighty  causes  of  corruption.  The  clergy  having  once  obtained  it, 
set  themselves  to  the  utmost  to  preserve  and  enlarge  it.  They 
wrested  from  the  people  the  right,  acknowledged  and  enjoyed  in 
the  beginning  of  choosing  their  church  officers,  and  claimed  this  as 
a  part  of  their  prerogative.  At  length  the  clergy  held  and  taught 
that  they  were  the  church,  and  possessed  in  themselves  all  the  pow- 
ers, rights,  privileges,  and  prerogatives,  which  God  had  given  to  his 
people.  As  for  the  Laity,  they  had  nothing  to  do,  but  believe  what 
their  priests  taught,  perform  what  they  enjoined,  and  suffer  what 
they  chose  to  inflict :  and  then  these  authorized  agents  of  heaven 
would  give  them,  by  means  of  the  sacraments,  assurance  of  sal- 
vation. 

This  general  sketch  of  the  church  may  afford  some  assistance  to 
the  students  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  Let  them,  with  a  reference 
to  this  subject  study  the  records  of  the  church,  and  they  will  find 
that, 

1.  When  the  organization  of  the  christian  society  was  completed 
by  the  Apostles  and  their  assistants,  the  church,  as  to  its  political 
form,  naas  a  Republic. 

4 


^18     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

2.  In  process  of  time,  under  the  influence  of  such  causes  as 
have  been  stated,  it  was  gradually  chaiigcd  into  an  Aristocracy. 

3.  This  first  step  paved  the  way  for  another,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  became  Monarchial. 

4.  The  power  of  this  monarchy  was  augmented  by  increasing 
ignorance  and  corruption,  until  there  was  beheld  a  most  frightful 
Despotism,  treading  on  the  necks  of  kings,  and  binding  in  chains 
the  subdued  and  degraded  nations  of  the  christian  world. 

In  comparing  this  most  instructive  portion  of  History  with  the 
claims  of  high  churchmen  in  the  present  day  ;  and  the  authorities 
by  which  they  support  their  pretensions,  we  are  most  forcibly 
struck  with  numerous  resemblances.  There  is  a  growth  in  our 
population,  which  carries  it  far  beyond  the  means  of  moral  and  re- 
ligious improvement.  There  are  thousands  on  thousands  in  our  coun- 
try, who  have  no  fixed  principles  of  religion  ;  and  little  more  knowl- 
edge of  the  real  character  of  Christianity  than  the  ancient  Pagans. 
They  have  never  read  the  Bible,  have  never  heard  it  truly  expounded. 
And  while  these  things  are  so,  there  is  a  growing  body  of  men 
among  us,  who  claim  to  be  exclusively  the  true  church  of  Christ  ; 
the  only  legitimate  interpreters  of  scripture  ;  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles,  the  factors  and  attornies  for  heaven,  divinely  appointed 
priests,  authorized  agents,  alone  empowered  to  give  men  assurance 
of  salvation.  And,  as  though  these  monstrous  claims  were  authen- 
ticated by  the  seal  of  heaven,  they  vapour  and  strut  before  our 
eyes,  demanding  with  haughty  air,  and  in  arrogant  terms,  universal 
acknowledgment  of  their  dignity,  and  submission  to  their  ecclesias- 
tical authority.  As  for  ourselves,  it  pleases  us  well  to  see  men  who 
set  up  such  extravagant  pretensions,  act  so  as,  in  the  judgment  of 
all  well  instructed  christians,  to  disprove  their  apostolical  authority. 
"  Ye  know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  dominion  over 
them,  and  they  that  are  great,  exercise  authority  upon  them  :  but 
it  shall  not  be  so  among  you  :  but  whosoever  will  be  great  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  minister  ;  and  whosoever  will  be  chief  among 
you,  let  him  be  your  servant."  Matt,  xx,  25 — 27.  But  can  the 
reader  fail  to  observe  that  these  are  precisely  the  pretensions  set 
up  by  the  very  men,  who,  in  former  ages,  bore  their  part  in  cor- 
rupting the  church,  and  bringing  in  the  abominations  of  popery  ? 

Again  :  when  opposition  is  raised  against  these  extravagancies, 
the  attempt  is  made  to  vindicate  them  by  the'same  means,  that 
were  employed  when  the  great  corruption  was  going  on.  So  the 
church  has  always  believed,  taught,  decreed — So  say  the  fathers — 
Such  is  the  tradition.  We  shall  take  occasion  to  show  some  very 
curious  coincidences  between  our  right  reverend  author,  and  some 
of  the  ancient  pretenders  to  apostolical  powers  and  prerogatives, 
before  we  have  done  with  him.  We  only  wish,  in  these  introduc- 
tory essays,  to  convince  our  readers  of  the  very  great  importance 
tind  necessity  of  the  work,  which  we  have  undertaken.  With  this 
view  we  remark  once  more, 

That  as  in  former  times  there  were  men,  who  found  their  account 
in  admitting  and  supporting  these  high  claims  of  the  clergy.  So  it 
is  now.     History  has  enabled  us  to  judge  very  certainly  of  the  mc- 


Review  of  Bishop  Eavenscroft's  Vindicalion  and  Defence.    29 

tives  of  the  laymen  of  other  ages,  who  were  willing  instruments  of 
enlarging  the  power  of  the  church.  But  we  do  not  pretend  to  form 
a  judgment  concerning  our  contemporaries.  The  fact  is  unques- 
tionable ;  be  the  motives  what  they  may.  It  is  confidently  said, 
too,  that  the  most  zealous  upholders  of  high  church  prerogative 
among  the  laity  of  our  day,  are  not  over-zealous  for  vital  religion, 
are  not  very  careful  to  avoid  profanity,  to  observe  the  Sabbath,  to 
attend  the  church,  &;c.  Do  they  want  a  religious  factor  to  do  the 
business  for  them,  and  save  them  all  the  trouble  ?  Do  they  want 
an  aristocratic  religion,  which  will  distinguish  them  from  the  com- 
mon people  ?  We  pretend  not  to  judge.  But  we  will  say  that 
when  high  church  principles  were  first  broached  among  us,  we 
thought  that  it  was  perfectly  a  work  of  supererogation  to  undertake 
to  oppose  them  ;  that  in  this  country,  their  very  extravagance,  their 
opposition  to  the  genius  of  all  our  political  institutions,  their  obvious 
tendencies  would  at  once  put  them  down.  But  they  are  growing. 
Their  influence  is  felt  even  by  evangelical  men.  Young  preachers, 
who  turned  out  warm-hearted  and  liberal,  are  gradually  screwed 
up  to  notions  and  feelings  high  enough  to  please  a  diocesan  bishop. 
We  see  these  things  and  lament  them.  It  is  our  duty  to  expose 
the  error,  and  give  the  warning.  And  as  God  may  give  us  grace 
to  be  faithful,  none  within  the  sphere  of  our  labours  shall  go  un- 
warned. 

We  have  shown  by  what  means  the  controversy  between  us  and 
bishop  Ravenscroft  arose  ;  and  how  important  to  the  purity  of  the 
church,  and  to  the  general  interests  of  society  are  the  questions  be- 
tween us.  We  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  his  book.  It 
is  our  purpose  fully  to  try  the  strength  of  its  arguments,  and 
show  the  tendency  of  its  principles. 

One  eighth  part  of  this  ponderous  pamphlet  is  occupied  in  what 
the  Prelate  calls  the  "  misrepresentations"  of  our  Reviewer. 
Through  the  whole  of  this  part,  vituperation  is  dealt  out  in  no 
measured  phrase,  and  with  no  delicacy  of  language.  We  might 
perhaps  think  it  necessary  to  notice  this  offensive  matter  in  the  first 
place,  had  not  bishop  R.  been,  before  this,  engaged  in  controversy. 
The  course  pursued  by  him  in  former  cases,  has  completely  nulli- 
fied the  formidableness  of  his  charges.  This  is  one  of  the  polemic 
arts  of  the  diocesan.  We  have  read  all  his  writings  that  have  fallen 
in  our  way  ;  and  as  far  as  we  have  seen,  he  never  feels  the  pinch 
of  his  antagonist's  argument,  without  crying  out,  "misrepresenta- 
tion, Sir!"  No  author,  whom  it  has  been  our  hap  to  peruse,  so 
completely  lays  himself  open  to  just  and  severe  criticism  ;  no  one 
so  provokes  attack.  Hence  it  is,  that  ever  and  anon  we  hear  the 
same  ungracious  cry  of,  misrepresentation.  In  the  newspaper  pa- 
ragraph, the  pamphlet,  and  the  dollar  and  a  quarter  volume  (in  blue 
paper)  it  is  forever  the  same  monotonous  yet  discordant  sound.  For 
proof  of  these  remarks,  we  refer  to  the  controversy  between  him 
and  Professor  Mitchell  of  North  Carolina,  respecting  the  Bible  So- 
ciety. He  there  charges  the  Professor  with  a  mutilation  of  private 
letters  which  had  previously  passed  between  them  ;  with  mutila- 
tion and  misrepresentation  of  authors  quoted,  particularly  the  cele- 


oU     lleviexv  of  Bishop  Raveiiscroft-s  J'uLdicatioii  and  iJefenct. 

brated  Chillingnorth.  The  Professor  publishes  the  letters  entire, 
and  shows  by  ocular  demonstration,  that  the  parts  which  had  been 
previously  omitted  had  no  earthly  connexion  with  the  matters  be- 
fore the  public.  He  publishes  the  bishop's  (piolation  from  Chill- 
ingworth,  and  proves  in  the  same  way,  that  a  part  of  the  passage, 
which  was  intended  for  the  very  purpose  of  qualifying  the  nieaning 
of  the  author  had  been  omitted.  'I'his  same  passage  has  been 
brought  out  against  us,  and  we  shall  have  to  notice  it  hereafter.  We 
did  suppose  that  the  is^uo  of  this  controversy,  would  have  made  the 
bishop  rather  ashamed  of  his  expedient  :  and  when  we  heard  the 
note  of  preparation  from  the  South,  it  was  our  hope  to  find  some 
amendment  from  the  wholesome  discipline  which  had  been  admin- 
istered.     But  "  zoe  had  mistaken  our  inan^ — And  hope  deceived  ns  I 

These  circumstances  leave  it  entirely  at  our  option,  we  think, 
whether  to  notice  his  charges  or  not.  Should  it,  in  prosecution  of 
our  design,  appear  likely  to  subserve  the  important  purposes  in 
view,  we  shall  animadvert  on  them  ;  otherwise  not.  Our  Review- 
er declares,  that,  as  far  as  he  is  personally  concerned  in  this  affair, 
he  is  not  at  all  sorry  at  the  course  which  the  bishop  has  pursued. 
He  vvishes  the  controversy  to  attract  public  attention  ;  and  the  sub- 
jects brought  under  discussion  to  be  fully  considered — And  as  he  is 
incapable  of  sny'iag  piguant  things  of  this  sort,  he  has  no  grief  on  his 
own  account  that  the  bishop  has  said  them.  In  looking  to  see  how 
the  Reviewer  will  answer  them,  many  readers  may  find  truths 
which  it  will  be  well  for  them  to  know.  Still  however,  he  would 
have  been  truly  glad  if  this  result  could  have  been  obtained,  with- 
out that  imnecessary  dereliction  of  the  true  Episcopal  character,  of 
which  the  book  before  us  affords  so  mortifying  an  example. 

Our  plan  then  is,  in  the  first  place,  to  bring  un:ler  review  what 
the  author  says  respecting  the  Church  ;  after  which  his  opinions  re- 
specting the  Bible  Society,  and  the  Interpretation  of  Scripture  will  be 
examined.  We  may  i\\en^  perhaps,  notice  the  subject  of  misrepre- 
sentations and  perversions  of  which  we  hear  so  much  from  the  right 
reverend  author.  But  here  we  cannot  help  offering  a  general  crit- 
ical remark  on  this  very  extraordinary  production.  A  considerable 
part  of  its  contents  are  by  no  means  in  harmony  with  the  ojjicial 
character,  which  is  blazoned  in  capitals  on  its  title  page.  The  book 
shows  in  many  respects  a  want  of  familiarity  with  the  appropriate 
mode  of  conducting  religious  discussions,  and  surprising  unacquain- 
tance  with  ecclesi  istical  history.  It  puts  one  very  much  in  mind 
of  the  manner  of  a  lawyer,  who  uniblc  to  make  a  sound  leoal  iirgu- 
ment,  browbeats  the  witnes>;es,  and  abuses  his  adversary.  Whether 
this  internal  evidence  indicates  any  thing  respecting  tlie  secret  his- 
tory of  the  composition  of  this  work,  we  will  not  pretend  even  to 
conjecture.  The  bishop  certaiidy  has  a  great  deal  on  his  hands, 
and  may  often  need  assistance  ;  and  lawyers,  sometimes  have 
leisure — But  we  will  not  put  our  critical  sagacity  to  hazard,  by  pur- 
suing this  subject  any  firther. 

It  is  on  the  21st  page  of  his  book,  that  the  writer  comes  to  con- 
sider the  objections  made  by  the  Reviewer  to  certain  points  ofdoc- 
trine  laid  down  in  the  Farewell  and  Convention  Sermons.     He  de- 


Iteviexv  of  Bishop  llavenscrqfV s  Vindication  and  Defence.     3 1 

Glares  that  the  matter  of  each  of  these  discourses  was  well  consid- 
ered, and  uttered  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  responsibility  of  his 
ministerial  character.  Notice  is  then  taken  of  a  remark  in  the  Re- 
view, respecting  the  injury  likely  to  be  done  by  the  fierce  spirit 
ofcontention  breathed  into  these  discourses  ;  after  which  the  writer 
permits  himself  to  say, 

"  But  as  presbyterianism  and  Christianity  are  not  synonimous,  at  least  in 
my  judgment,  and  vvliitt  may  be  considered  injurious  to  the  former,  may 
nevertheless  be  innocuous,  if  not  helpful,  to  the  latter,  1  trust  to  stand  excus- 
ed for  venturing  to  dispute  so  strong  an  assertion,  and  for  exposing  the  fal- 
lacies with  which  it  is  endeavoured  to  be  supported.  In  your  June  No.  p. 
301,  you  ohsirve — 

"  '  In  our  Southern  country,  subjects  of  tiiis  kind  have  been  so  little  dis- 
cussed, that  the  great  body  of  the  people  have  no  ideas  of  their  true  bearing, 
or  of  the  manner  in  which  they  affect  tlieir  vital  interests.' 

"  Most  true  sir,  and  as  you  doubtless  know  in  whose  hands  the  religious 
instruction  oi'  the  southern  people,  has,  almost  exclusively,  been,  for  the 
last  forty  or  fifty  years,  perliaps  you  can  tell  the  reason,  why  subjects  of 
this  kind,  have  been  witliheld  from  public  discussion.  But  for  this  very 
reason,  and  because  he  deems  them  vital  stibjects  ^nd -dWecilng  vitali?iterests 
did  Bishop  Ravenscroft  feel  it  his  bounden  duty,  to  present  them  to  those 
more  particularly  under  iiis  cliarge,  and  eventually  to  the  public.  And  most 
unquestionably,  if  they  are  oftiiis  important  description,  and  the  people 
have  710  ideas  of  their  true  bearing,  it  is  high  time  that  their  attention  should 
be  called  to  them,  and  every  way  reasonable,  that  Bishop  R.  should  stand 
justified  for  discarding  that  false  tenderness  to  the  feelings  of  others,  which 
had  l)een  instrumental  in  keeping  back  these  fundamental  doctrines  from 
the  edification  of  the  pulpit." 

On  this  we  observe  in  the  first  place,  that  not  a  single  syllable  in 
the  Review  indicates  that  its  special  object  was  to  defend  Presbyte- 
rianism. The  Reviewer,  indeed,  counts  it  his  honour  to  belong  to 
that  denomination  of  Christians  :  not  because  they  are  smiled  on  by 
the  great,  or  followed  by  the  multitude.  But  because,  although 
suspected,  feared'  misunderstood,  and  reproached  as  they  are,  they 
hold  the  gospel  m  its  simplicity  ;  are  the  true  and  staunch  friends 
of  learning  and  science,  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  and  practise 
that  liberality  of  which  others  boast.  But  with  these  sentiments, 
the  Reviewer  never  thought  of  identifying  Presbyterianism  with 
Christianity.  And  if  bishop  R.  does  so  in  regard  to  his  own  Soci- 
ety, the  Reviewer  is  happy  in  having  this  opportunity  of  differing 
from  him.  There  would,  he  is  free  to  admit,  be  a  church,  and  true 
Christians,  if  there  was  not  a  Presbyterian  in  the  world.  So  too,  if 
there  were  not  an  Episcopalian  in  the  world.  The  Reviewer,  in- 
deed, never  will  wiirink  from  a  defence  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
when  railed  to  lh.it  service,  but  in  the  articles  which  awakened  the 
wrath  of  the  Prelate,  his  object  was  to  vindicate  the  cause  of  christian 
charily  and  brotherly  love,  assailed  as  it  was  by  hands  that  ought  to 
have  been  stfeti  bed  out  in  its  defence. 

In  the  next  place  our  right  reverend  polemic  seems  to  reproach 
us  for  the  fact  that  subjects  of  church  order  and  polity  have  been  so 
little  discussed  in  the  southern  country,  for  the  last  forty  or  fifty 
years.  We  know  that  some  think  we  have  been  to  blame  for  our 
reserve  on  these  subjects.  Certainly,  we  have  exhibited  exempla- 
ry caution  and  moderation.     But  it  was  very  ungrateful  in  bishop  R, 


32     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

to  reproach  us  for  it.  There  was  a  time,  when  the  hostihty  of 
Presbyterianism  would  have  been  deeply  felt  by  the  Episcopal 
church.  Such  hostihty,  however,  has  never  existed,  except  in  the 
heated  imaginations  of  such  men  as  our  author. 

It  seems  necessary  here,  to  state  more  fully  than  we  have  done, 
the  object  of  our  Reviewer  in  the  papers  which  have  awakened 
so  bitter  a  spirit,  and  called  forth  such  violent  reproaches. — Bishop 
R.  had,  in  strong  terms,  denounced  all  non-episcopalians,  as  schis- 
matics. He  disowned  them  as  brethren,  and  wished  to  persuade 
all  Episcopalians  to  disown  them  too.  They  are  out  of  the  church  ; 
and  cannot  be  acknowledged  as  fellow-christians.  If  he  is  right,  all 
communion  between  other  christians  and  the  denomination  to  which 
he  belongs,  ought  to  be  broken  up  at  once  and  forever.  Now  we 
venture  to  say,  that  it  is  impossible  for  an  impartial  reader  to  es- 
amine  these  Reviews,  without  perceiving  that  the  leading  object  of 
the  writer  was  to  prevent  this  effect  ;  to  prevent  the  iacrease  of 
bigotry  and  intolerance,  of  sectarian  zeal  and  polemic  fury  in  our 
happy  country.  And  this  he  hoped  to  accomplish,  by  showing  that 
the  differences  between  Episcopalians  and  other  evangelical  denom- 
inations do  not  enter  into  the  essential  character  of  the  church  : 
that  they  are  points,  about  which  good  men  and  sincere  christians 
may  differ,  and  yet  walk  together  in  love.  It  was  declared  again 
and  again  that  the  Reviewer  had  no  quarrel  with  Episcopalians  ; 
and  on  the  assumption  that  they  can,  in  conformity  with  their  modes 
and  forms,  and  peculiar  doctrines,  best  make  their  way  to  heaven, 
he  cordially  bade  them  "  God  speed,''  and  prayed  that  grace, 
mercy  and  peace,  might  be  multiplied  to  them. — It  is  the  design 
above  stated,  which  has  been  construed  into  a  fierce  and  malignant 
hostility  to  the  Episcopal  church,  which  seeks  its  gratification  by 
means  the  most  ''base  audjlagitious  ;^'  by  wilful  misrepresentation 
and  notorious  fiilsehood !  To  such  terms  as  these  we  have  nothing 
to  say — We  feel  nothing  but  pity  for  the  clergyman  who  can  allow 
himself  to  use  them. 

Our  language  to  Episcopalians  is  unchanged.  If  you  choose  to 
live  under  diocesan  bishops,  and  to  use  (he  forms  of  the  book  of 
common  prayer, — be  it  so!  But  we  do  not  believe  that  this  is  best 
for  us:  we  can  find  nothing  in  the  word  of  God,  to  oblige  us  to 
adopt  the  same  system  of  church  government  and  modes  of  worship; 
in  a  word,  we  think  that  these  things  are  additions  to  the  simplicity 
of  the  gospel;  but  let  us  not  make  them  terms  of  communion.  We 
agree  in  fundamental  points;  let  us  exercise  mutual  charity,  in  re- 
lation to  subordinate  concerns,  and  walk  together  in  love. — But 
here  interposes  bishop  R.,  and  vehemently  affirms  that  these  are 
not  subordinate  concerns,  they  are  vital;  they  are  essential  to  the 
very  being  of  a  church,  and  to  the  best  hopes  of  mEfn.  And  this 
is  the  very  git  of  the  controversy  between  us. 

In  the  remark  quoted  in  our  Review,  we  had  said,  that  for  want 
of  discussion,  the  people  have  no  idea  of  the  true  bearing  of  these 
subjects,  and  of  the  manner  in  which  they  affect  their  vital  inter- 
ests. The  bistiop  seems  to  think  that  this  very  reason  justifies  the 
course  which  he  has  pursued.     He  thinks  them  vital  subjects,  and 


Seview  of  Bishop  Ilavenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence,     33 

affecting  "vital  interests,^'  and  therefore  felt  it  his  duty  to  bring 
them  before  the  public. — What  is  this,  but  a  declaration  of  hi?  be- 
lief that  the  hope  of  man  for  heaven  depends  on  his  connexion  with 
the  Episcopal  church?  This  we  admit  is  a  proof  of  the  good  gen- 
tleman's sincerity,  but  none  at  all  of  the  soundness  of  his  opinions. 
And  the  very  thing  for  which  we  blame  him  is  that  he  does  hold 
such  opinions.  If  they  are  wrong,  as  we  expect  to  prove  before 
we  are  done  with  the  subject,  he  cannot  be  right  in  holding  them, 
nor  does  the  sincerity  of  his  belief  at  all  justify  him. 

But  what  interests  we  meant,  is  clear  enough  from  the  context. — - 
We  spoke  of  the  Bible  Society,  of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  of 
religious  liberty,  as  vital  interests — Are  not  these  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  be  called  vital?  The  bearing  of  bishop  R's.  opinions  on 
high  matters  of  this  kind,  we  affirmed  was  not  understood.  And 
truly  it  is  so.  Even  many  of  our  most  intelligent  men  have  so  ne- 
glected the  study  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  as  not  to  perceive  the 
natural  tendency  of  these  doctrines.  They  do  not  see  that  if  the 
claims  of  the  Church  (according  to  the  bishop's  nomenclature)  should 
be  granted  in  all  their  extent,  nothing  but  a  religious  establishment 
could  prevent  ecclesiastical  power  from  becoming  supreme  in  the 
nation.  We  declared  that  bishop  R.  did  not  himself  see  the  conse- 
quences of  his  own  opinions.  We  are  more  than  ever  confirmed 
in  this  opinion.  The  work  now  under  review  affords  most  con» 
vincing  evidence  that  the  writer  is  no  adept  in  ecclesiastical  history; 
that  he  has  studied  only  one  side  of  his  subject,  using  too  the  aid  of 
none  but  partisan  writers;  and  that  passion  and  prejudice  have 
greatly  blinded  his  understanding.  His  unparalleled  confidence  may 
possibly  mislead  the  ignorant;  but  it  will  surprise  the  learned:  the 
vehemence  of  his  style  may  overpower  the  feeble  minded;  but 
men  of  true  discernment  will  recognise  the  impetuosity  of  passion, 
where  they  expected  the  force  of  argument. 

We  have  stated  the  most  important  point  of  the  controversj';  but  it 
is  necessary  to  bring  this  matter  forward  more  distinctly,  or  this  dis. 
cussion  can  never  be  closed.  It  is  certain  that  the  bishop  has  sadly 
mistaken  our  positions;  otherwise,  pressed  as  he  is  by  various  and 
important  concerns,  he  would  have  spared  himself  much  unneces- 
sary writing. 

Bishop  R,  has  chosen  so  to  construct  his  work,  that  our  readers 
need  to  be  informed  what  are  not  the  matters  in  dispute  between  us. 

We  do  not,  we  never  did,  we  never  could  deny  the  divine  origin^ 
the  covenant  relation,  the  sameness  in  every  age,  the  unity  of  the 
church,  nor  the  divine  appointment  of  the  christian  ministry.  On 
the  contrary,  we  maintain  all  these  truths,  with  as  much  zeal  and 
consistency  as  Bishop  Ravenscroft;  though  we  thank  heaven,  with 
a  very  different  spirit.  We  do  not,  indeed,  admit  that  the  sameness, 
or  the  unity  of  the  church  consists  in  what  he  supposes  it  does:  we 
do  not  believe  that  the  purpose  and  powers  of  the  christian  miniS' 
try  are  what  he  imagines  them  to  be. 

As  to  the  sameness  of  the  church,  we  confess  ourselves  at  a  loss  to 
determine  precisely  what  the  bishop  thinks.  In  his  manner  of  con- 
ducting an  argument  he  drive?  on  withsuch  Jehu-like  vehemence  as  to 


34     Review  of  Bishop  Ravcnscrqft^ 8  Vindication  and  Defence. 

keep  himself  continually  in  a  cloud  of  dust,  often  we  lose  sight  of  him 
altogether.  He  had,  with  peculiar  infelicity,  affirmed  that  the  dis- 
pensations under  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were  identical.  We 
showed  beyond  a  doubt  that  this  could  not  be  so,  unless  different 
dispensations  could  be  the  same.  On  this  subject  the  bishop  thus 
expresses  himself. 

"Is  the  word  identity  never  used  in  the  sense  of  sameness  oragreement — 
not  diverse,  or  implying  diversity  in  the  sense  of  opposition  ?  and  in  this 
most  common  use  of  the  word,  is  there  not  an  identity  of  origin,  of  design 
and  of  end  in  the  two  dispensations  ?  Do  you  design  to  insinuate  into  the 
minds  of  your  readers — that  either  the  parties,  tlie  purpose,  or  the  means 
have  been  so  changed — tliat  the  opposite  of  identity,  can  justly  be  affirmed, 
of  either  to  the  other  ?  If  so — and  I  see  not  what  else  you  can  have  in 
view — It  would  be  a  more  manly  part  to  speak  it  out,  and  let  the  public  see 
at  once,  how  much  of  the  unity  of  revealed  trutli,  as  well  as  of  the  visible 
church,  must  be  surrendered,  to  sustain  the  great  Diana  of  parity  ?  This 
sir  is  no  trifling  point — though  it  is  so  little  thought  of  and  applied  by  chris- 
tians and  christian  teachers  of  the  present  day.  I  therefore  askyou  again — 
Is  not  the  New  Testament  dispensation  of  the  grace  of  God  to  the  world — in 
such  wise  connected  with,  and  perfective  of  the  Old  Testament  dispensation 
of  the  same  grace — as  could  with  no  truth  be  affirmed  of  them,  were  they  not 
identical,  in  the  sense  of  implying  the  same  thing  ?  And  if  tliis  sliall  be  the 
judgment  of  all  sound,  impartial,  and  informed  christians;  what  must  be 
thought  of  the  vicious  reasoning  resorted  to,  by  you  on  this  subject — in  order 
to  fasten  upon  me  the  absurdity  of  asserting  tliat  the  sliadow  and  the  sub- 
stance are  the  same  identically,  which  is  no  where  affirmed." 

This  passage  would  afford  room  for  much  amusing  remark,  if  on 
so  grave  a  subject,  we  might  seek  for  amusement.  But  as  this 
would  be  rather  out  of  place,  we  only  say  here,  that  we  will  give  a 
copy  of  our  Review,  when  finished,  to  any  man  who  will  make  for 
us  a  literal  translation  of  this  quotation  into  another  language,  Latin 
or  Greek,  French  or  Italian,  if  the  bishop  were  not  too  busy,  it 
would  be  a  profitable  exercise  for  him.-ielf.  How.  for  instance, 
will  the  first  clause  be  put  into  Latin?  "Is  the  ivord  identity  never 
used  in  the  sense  of  sameness,''''  &c.  Is  it  not  obvious  that  the  ques- 
tion amounts  precisely  to  this,  Is  the  vvord  identity  never  used  in 
the  sense  of  identity?  But  it  is  vain  t«)  hope  that  the  philology  of 
the  bishop  will  ever  be  improved.  We  advert  to  the  subject  for  the 
sake  of  remarking  that  if  there  is  any  thins  distinctly  to  be  gathered 
from  the  passage  quoted,  it  amounts  to  this,  that  the  identity  of  the 
church  is  such,  that  it  admits  of  various  changes  without  the  des- 
truction of  that  identity.  And  this  is  precisely  the  general  princi- 
ple for  which  we  contend.  Indeed  it  is  impossible  to  state  the 
proposition,  the  church  is  the  same  under  different  dispensations., 
without  this  admission.  The  bishop's  mistake  was,  the  confounding 
of  c/mrc/t  and  dispensation  in  a  way  very  strange  for  a  man  who  un- 
dertakes to  write  about  the  church.  The  use  of  all  this  will  appear 
hereafter. 

The  general  doctrine  maintained  by  us,  in  relation  to  the  same- 
ness of  the  church  is  this: — 

"The  visible  church  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  the 
which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and  tlie  sacraments  be 
duly  administered,  according  to  Christ's  ordinance  in  all  those  things 
that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same."     Let  this  definition  be 


Meview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence.    55 

extended  so  as  to  embrace  all  congregations  in  which  the  pure 
word  is  preached,  &;c.,  and  we  are  perfectly  ready  to  accept  it  as 
our  definition.  Now  this  church  is  the  same  under  every  dispensa- 
tion, because  under  all  the  forms  which  have  prevailed,  whether 
patriarchal,  Jewish,  or  christian,  the  same  system  of  truth  has  been 
proposed;  the  same  plan  of  salvation  unfolded.  The  only  difference, 
in  this  respect,  arises  from  the  diflerent  degrees  of  information 
communicated  in  different  ages.  But  as  to  the  external  forms,  b}' 
which  this  truth  is  made  known,  and  (as  means)  applied  to  the  un- 
derstanding and  conscience,  God  has  not  confined  himself  to  them; 
nor  made  them  essential  to  the  real  existence  of  the  church,  or  to 
the  efficiency  of  his  truth.  In  the  spirit  of  this  observation,  we 
find  ourselves  fully  supported  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  Rom.  ii,  25 — 29. 
•'  For  circumcision  verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the  law;  but  if  thou 
be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  madeuncircumcision. — 
Therefore,  if  the  uncircumcision  (the  uncircumcised  person)  keep 
the  righteousness  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncircumcision  be  counted 
for  circumcision?"  &;c.  Now  if  we  understand  bishop  R.  he  says. 
No!  If  the  man  is  uncircumcised,  no  matter  what  he  believes  or 
does,  he  is  so  out  of  the  covenant,  that  he  has  no  right  to  hope  for 
the  mercy  of  God. 

But  he  goes  farther,  and  maintains  that  a  particular  external 
form  of  the  church,  is  essential  to  its  very  being  ;  and  that  a  pres- 
cribed mode  of  administration  is  necessary  to  give  validity  to  every 
ordinance,  and  assurance  of  spiritual  blessings  to  the  receiver. 
This  prescription  includes,  as  we  understand,  in  every  case  the 
person  who  administers,  as  well  as  the  ordinance  administered. 

"Suppose  Lot  had  been  desirous  to  partake  of  the  privileges,  blessings 
and  promises  made  over  to  his  kinsman,  and  in  consequence  of  this  desire, 
had  applied  to  Melchisedeck  to  affix  the  appropriate  seal,  and  he  had  done 
so.  Would  this  have  availed  Lot,  and  conferred  a  title  to  the  blessings  of 
that  covenant  ?  Could  any  persuasion  of  his  own  mind,  or  any  reasonings 
of  others,  or  any  holiness  in  the  administrator,  have  supplied  the  defect  of 
divine  warrant  to  perform  the  act  ?  Surely  there  can  be  but  one  answer  to 
these  questions." 

Now  our  object  was  to  prove  that,  according  to  the  scriptures, 
and  the  plain  reason  of  the  case,  the  church  of  God  was  not  thus 
limited,  its  sameness  does  not  depend  on  these  outward  things,  and 
we  are  obliged  to  our  author  for  helping  our  argument  by  referring 
to  the  case  of  circumcision.  We  ask  in  reply  to  the  case  stated  in 
the  quotation,  who  regularly  administered  circumcision  in  the 
Jewish  Church  ?  Who,  for  instance,  circumcised  the  child  of 
Moses,  Exod.  iv,  24 — 26?  Was  that  child  out  of  the  covenant, 
because  the  operation  was  performed  by  the  mother  ?  Where  is 
the  law  prescribing  the  person  who  should  perform  this  rite  ?  We 
also  ask,  what  was  the  condition  of  all  the  Jews  born  in  the  wilder- 
ness, since  it  appears  that  there  was  no  circumcision  from  the  time 
of  the  departure  out  of  Egypt,  until  the  entrance  into  Canaan  ? 
Joshua  V,  5. 

It  is  evident  that  the  design  of  our  Remarks,  in  relation  to  the 
unchangeable  character  of  the  church  were  not  understood  by  the 
bishop ;  and  we  shall  here  endeavour  to  show  their  relevancy. 
5 


36   Meview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Some  of  our  readers  know,  and  all  ought  to  know  that  bishop  R, 
connects,  the  sameness  of  the  church  with  the  ministry.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  is  not  of  the  same  body  with  the  Episcopal 
Church,  because  the  former  has  not  the  same  order  in  the  christian 
ministry  with  the  latter  ;  the  former  owns  no  distinctions  among  the 
ministers  of  the  gospel ;  while  the  latter  holds  three  orders.  And 
this  is  one  reason  why  the  bishop  regards  them  as  societies  so  dis- 
tinct, that  one  is  the  church,  and  the  other  is  not. 

Now  in  a  review  prepared  for  a  monthly  magazine,  we  could  not 
enter  fully  into  any  one  of  the  numerous  errors  advanced  by  the 
bishop  ;  and  therefore  were  constrained  to  offer  general  remarks, 
which  would  let  the  reader  see  that  our  prelate's  opinions  were  un- 
tenable. It  has  always  been,  we  repeat,  our  full  conviction  that  the 
unchangeable  character  of  the  church  depends  on  the  unchangeable 
system  of  truth  revealed  by  God.  In  support  of  this  opinion,  though 
not  formally  announced  in  the  review,  we  adverted  to  the  changes 
which  have  taken  place  under  different  dispensations,  while  the 
church  continues  the  same — identically  the  same,  in  every  thing 
necessary  to  constitute  it  a  church. 

Besides,  we  constructed  what  we  regarded  as  a  good  argumen- 
turn  ad  hominem,  [an  argument  best  suited  to  convince  bad  logicians 
we  admit,]  by  which  we  hoped  to  make  the  bishop  feel  his  error. 
It  amounts  to  about  this.  Besides  the  point,  stated  above,  respect- 
ing the  ministry,  the  Episcopalians  differ  from  Dissente7-s,  in  a  vari- 
ety of  particulars,  which,  according  to  the  39  articles,  the  church 
has  a  right  to  change  according  to  circumstances.  These  are,  the 
iranner  of  public  prayer;  sponsors,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  mode 
of  applying  water  in  baptism  ;  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  conse- 
cration of  churches  ;  prescription  of  clerical  vestments.  Besides 
these,  there  is  in  use  among  them  an  ecclesiastical  rite,  which  they 
call  confirmation,  and  hold  to  be  necessary,  before  one  partakes  of 
the  holy  communion.  All  these  points  of  difference,  we  remarked, 
have  been  superadded  by  Episcopalians  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 
Bishop  R.  admits  that  they  are,  confirmation  excepted,  "decent  ce- 
remonials, charigeahle  according  to  circumstances.''''  (pa.  25.)  Now 
some  of  these  are  slight  matters  in  comparison  with  others.  But  we 
may  assume  them  all  to  be  more  or  less  important.  We  advert  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  church  addresses  God  in  prayer,  as  a  sub- 
ject of  very  great  interest.  The  mode  of  administering  the  sacra- 
ments as  seals  of  God's  covenanted  mercies  ought  not  to  be  regard- 
ed as  trivial.  But  if  God  has  left  such  matters  as  these  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  church,  does  it  not  afford  a  very  strong  presumption, 
to  say  the  least,  that  the  difference  between  presbyterial  ordination, 
for  instance,  and  episcopal  orders  is  not  essential  to  the  truth  and 
l-eal  existence  of  the  church.  Or,  to  put  the  case  in  a  still  strong- 
er point  of  light,  if  God  has  by  the  confession  of  Episcopalians,  left 
such  matters  as  these  to  the  discretion  of  the  church,  can  it  be  be- 
lieved, without  express  declarations  of  scripture,  that  the  hopes  of 
man  for  eternity  are  connected  with  the  episcopal  orders.  The 
identity  of  the  church  surely  is  not  so  connected  with  this  subject, 
as  to  nullify  the  ecclesiastical  character  of  all  associations  of  be- 
lieTers,  who  are  not  under  a  diocesan  bishop. 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt's  Vindication  and  Deftnce.     57 

Our  objections,  then,  are  not  "as  irrelevant  to  the  subject  as  can 
be  conceived."  The  bishop  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  consider  the 
object  in  view,  and  he  thought  (hat  his  assertion  was  enough  for  his 
readers.  Or  perhaps  his  passion  would  not  permit  him  to  see. — 
That  he  was  in  anger,  is  manifest  from  the  language  which  he  per- 
mits himself  to  use.  Speaking  of  these  ^^primitive,  orderly  and  edi' 
fying*  ceremonials,''^  he  says,  "  Do  you  not  know,  that  these  stum- 
bling blocks  to  the  pride  of  Presbytery,  these  bug-bears  to  the  spirit- 
ual pride  of  deluded  fanatics,  are  decreed  and  practised,  as  primi- 
tive, orderly,  and  edifying  ceremonials,"  &c. — It  must  be  confessed 
that  there  is  a  right  handsome  alliteration  in  the  phrase,  "Pride  of 
Presbytery  !"  But  ought  a  man  who  lives  in  a  glass-house  to  throw 
stones  ?  There  is  too  something  very  lofty  in  ;  '■'tliese  bug-bears  to 
the  spiritual  pride  o{  ignorant  and  deluded  fanatics.^''  But  why, 
bug-bears?  We  profess  not  to  know  ;  we  are  able  however  to  tell 
the  bishop,  that  men  are  fanatical  on  more  than  one  subject.  They 
may  rage  and  rave  about  church  order,  just  as  wildly  as  a  Chrystian 
in  his  highest  camp-meeting  frenzies  rages  about  inspiration.  After 
the  question  just  recited,  the  author  goes  on  to  put  some  others, 
which  call  for  some  attention,  although  they  carry  us  from  the  sub- 
ject immediately  in  hand. 

"Where  have  you  ever  heard  or  read,  that  they  are  held  as  the  essence  of 
religion,  and  grounds  for  rejecting  from  communion,  and  christian  fellow^ 
ship  any  deiTomuiation  of  christians  episcopally  constituted  ?  How  often 
have  you  yourself,  who  certainly  do  not  hold  or  use  them,  received  the  holy 
communion  from  episcopal  hands  ?  How  often  haWe  you  been  told,  that  the 
reason  why  they  cannot  in  return  receive  at  your  hands  is,  not  that  you  do 
not  use  forms  of  prayer,  and  sponsors  in  baptism,  &c.  &c.  but  because  they 
believe  in  their  consciences,  that  you  have  no  authority  to  administer  ?  Why 
then  commit  yourself  against  such  plain  truth,  and  give  such  just  cause  to 
say,  that  you  write  to  mislead  ?  And  as  the  subject  I  am  upon  suggests  it, 
let  me  ask  you  further  ;  if  you  can  receive  the  communion  once  from  epis- 
copal hands,  with  a  good  conscience,  wliy  not  always  ?  What  possible  justi- 
fication can  there  be,  for  separation  from  a  communion,  which  you  can  par- 
take of  with  a  good  conscience  ?  Are  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
church  which  you  decry  so  bitterly,  in  such  sort  sinful,  as  to  warrant 
breach  of  communion  ?  Are  they  in  any  respect,  contrary  to  the  love  of 
God,  or  to  the  law  of  man  ?  If  not,  how  can  they  touch  the  conscience  ? 
They  may  indeed  offend  the  pride,  prejudice  and  caprice  of  unreasonable 
or  contentious  men,  but  they  cannot  touch  the  conscience,  in  any  just 
sense  of  that  much  abused  word ;  or  furnish  an  excuse  for  rending  the 
body  of  Christ." 

As  to  the  first  question  here  proposed,  we  reply  by  asking  ano- 
ther, what  would  bishop  R.  do  with  one  of  his  presbyters,  who 
should  in  his  ministrations,  refuse  to  administer  according  to  the  ru- 
brics?— Perhaps  some  people  in  North  Carolina  can  help  him  to  an 
answer.  Or  would  he  administer  the  holy  communion  to  a  person 
who  should  refuse  to  kneel  at  the  Lord's  table  ? 

*NoTE.  How  edifying  these  are,  we  are  yet  to  learn.  Sure  we  are,  that 
priestly  and  episcopal  vestments  never  gave  us  any  instruction  ;  we  know 
that  they  have  greatly  excited  the  surprise  of  children  !  The  Sign  of  the 
Cross,  made  by  the  priest  on  the  child's  forehead,  has  always  struck  us  as  a 
Catholic  Superstition.  But  they  are  primitive. — How  does  the  bishop  know 
this  ?  Did  the  Apostles  consecrate  churches,  wear  episcopal  habits,  make 
the  sign  of  the  cross,  &c.  Wc  want  much  to  know  how  far  this  word  primi- 
tivs  extends. 


38    Jieview  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

As  to  the  personal  matter  here  urged  on  the  Reviewer,  he  an- 
swers frankly,  that  he  had  no  hesitation  nor  scruple  to  receive  the 
communion  from  '^episcopal  hands  ;"*  until  he  plainly  enough  un- 
derstood that  "  episcopal  hatids''^  would  not  receive  of  him  : — that  is, 
that  episcopalians  separated  themselves  from  all  other  denomina- 
tions, denying  their  church-membership,  their  ordination,  and  the 
validity  of  all  their  administrations.  We  knew,  indeed,  that  this 
was  the  way  of  high-churchmen  :  but  we  supposed  that  evangelical 
clergymen  entertained  better  views  of  this  subject.  We  were 
strengthened  in  this  opinion,  by  knowing  the  fact,  that  some  episco- 
pal clergymen  did  commune  with  other  denominations.  But  it  was 
soon  ascertained  that  things  were  to  be  so  no  longer. 

According  to  the  old  bad  Latin  proverb,  noviis  rex  novus  Iex,'\ 
And  the  Reviewer,  after  much  serious  deliberation,  determined  no 
longer  to  receive  the  communion  from  Episcopal  hands,  because,  in 
his  judgment,  Episcopal  practice  in  this  case  is  schismatical.  It  is 
an  eflfectual  rending  of  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  a  separation  of 
Christians  from  one  another,  on  account  of  matters,  which,  so  far 
from  being  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church,  have  never,  in 
any  age,  conduced  to  its  purity.  The  spirit  of  the  Episcopal 
church  in  this  day,  would  have  been  regarded  as  schismatical  by 
the  fathers  and  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England.  For  they  did 
acknowledge  the  foreign  Protestants,  as  branches  of  the  church  of 
Christ;  and  they  did  not,  by  the  1 9th  Article,  mean  to  exclude 
them  from  the  body  of  God's  covenanted  people.  Bishop  R.  says 
that  these  are  gratuitous  assertions,  because  we  did  hot  bring  for- 
ward our  proofs.  We  thought  that  there  could  be  no  necessity  of 
proving  such  well  knonm  historical  facts,  to  readers  for  whose  bene- 
fit we  wrote.  We  would  not  assume  so  great  ignorance  in  them. 
And,  now,  we  cannot  hope  to  add  much  to  the  knowledge  of  those, 
who,  because  they  have  received  the  Episcopal  spirit,  think  that 
they  know  all  things.  But  we  mean  hereafter  to  treat  this  subject 
in  such  a  way,  that  bishop  R.  shall  be  sorry  for  having  compelled 
us  to  take  it  up.  At  present  we  content  ourselves  with  repeating 
our  well  considered  assertion  that  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of 
England  did  acknowledge  foreign  Protestants  as  members  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  But  we  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that 
the  only  concern  we  have  on  this  subject  arises  from  the  regard 
ivhich  we  entertain  for  the  names  of  those  great  and  good  men,  and 
our  solicitude  for  the  honour  of  the  christian  religion.  We  cherish 
the  memory  of  such  men  as  Cranmer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  their 
fellow  labourers,  we  reverence  their  virtues,  and  are  willing  that 
their  errors  should  be  covered  with  the  mantle  of  charity.  But  if 
they  had  laid  the  stress  on  the  distinctive  characters  of  Episcopacy, 
which  high  churchmen  do  in  this  country,  it  would  not  weigh  a 
feather  with  us.  With  the  word  of  God  in  our  hands,  and  speaking 
plainly  for  us,  the  world  against  us  is  nothing.  We  do  know,  how- 
ever, that  the  successors  of  the  English  Reformers  have  lost  their 
spirit  ;  and  at  this  day,  they  separate  themselves  from  the  great 

*Episcopal  hands  here  are  the  hands  of  a  bishop. 
jit  is  about  as  good,  however,  as  the  bishop's  *'fast  est  ab  hoste  doceve."^ 


Review  of  Bishop  Kavenscrojt's  ViniUcalion  and  Defence-    39 

body  of  Protestants  throughout  the  world.  In  the  U.  States  Episcopa- 
'lians  are  comparatively  a  small  minority.  Their  ministers  do  not 
make  a  tenth  part  of  the  clergy  of  the  country.  In  Gt.  Britain,  they 
do  not  make  a  large  majority.  Indeed  we  conjecture  that,  taking 
in  the  Church  of  Scotland,  the  Presbyterian  and  Independent  Dis- 
senters from  that  church,  and  the  Orthodox  Dissenters  in  England, 
the  number  of  communicants  among  them,  would  exceed  those  who 
frequent  the  altars  of  the  established  church.  And  among  foreign 
Protestants,  comparatively  very  few  admit  Episcopacy  to  be  a  dis- 
tinct order.  Chiefly,  then,  on  account  of  the  mere  matter  of  orrfer^. 
Episcopalian?  cut  off  from  the  church  of  God,  and  all  its  covenant- 
ed mercies,  and  all  its  precious  hopes,  this  gre-.it  body  of  Protes- 
tants. They  separate  themselves  from  this  communion  of  saints, 
and  cast  them  off  from  christian  fellowship.  If  this  is  not  schismat- 
ical  conduct,  we  do  not  know  what  schism  is.  After  coming  to  this 
conclusion,  we  could  not  any  longer  receive  the  communion  from 
"  Episcopal  hands."  We  do  not  indeed  renounce  brotherhood 
with  them.  We  only  refuse  to  give  countenance  to  this  lamentable 
error.  But  bishop  K.  deceives  himself  most  deplorably,  if  he  sup-, 
poses  that  our  anxiety  on  this  subject  arises  from  any  desire  to  find 
support  for  our  system,  from  Episcopal  concessions.  We  have  not 
the  shadow  of  a  doubt  respecting,  the  validity  of  our  ordination. — 
And  the  testimony  of  all  who  "■  add  right  reverend  (o  their  honour- 
ed names,"  throughout  the  whole  world  would  not  add  a  little  of 
strength  to  our  conviction  that  we  have  just  as  perfect  a  right  to 
preach  and  administer  ordinances  as  bishop  R.  or  the  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury.  But  we  wish  to  wipe  away  the  standing  reproach 
of  Christianity  ;  and  to  let  the  world  see,  by  the  harmony  and  bro- 
therly love  of  christians,  exhibited  under  differences  in  unessential 
matters,  the  true  genius  of  our  religion.  We  are,  for  this  reason, 
and  this  only,  truly  desirous  that  our  brethren  should  let  down  their 
high  pretensions,  but  until  the}  do  this,  we  cannot  consent  to  ap- 
pear before  the  public  to  admit  their  claims.  And  now,  as  minis- 
ters of  the  Lord  Jesus,  we  solemnly  warn  and  exhort  bishop  R.  and 
all  who  think  with  him  to  consider,  whether  the  charge,  which, 
often  in  bitter  terms,  they  bring  against  non-episcopalians,  and  the 
denunciations,  which  they  fear  not  to  utter  against  them,  may  not 
return  on  their  own  souls  in  another  day,  when  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church  will  make  it  appear  before  the  universe,  how  little 
value  he  places  on  matters  merely  externa!,  and  how  highly  he 
values  that  love,  which  is  the  fultilling  ofthe  law.  Why  will  they 
not  learn,  that  the  great  end  of  truth,  is  to  mould  men  into  the  like- 
ness of  heaven  ;  to  awaken  feelings  and  prompt  to  actions  corres- 
ponding to  its  own  pure  and  celestial  character  ;  that  the  mode  of 
its  conveyance  to  the  understanding  and  the  heart,  whether  by  t'he 
**  lawn  robed  Prelate,  or  plain  Presbyter,"  is  a  matter  of  no  con- 
sideration with  that  holy  Being,  who  looks  at  the  inner  man  ?  Why 
will  they  attempt  to  persuade  (he  people,  that  it  is  not  the  deep  re- 
pentance, the  lively  faith,  the  warm-hearted  charity,  the  fervent 
piety  only  ofthe  humble  communicant,  which  warrant  the  hope  of 
divine  acceptance,  but  also  this  other  circumstance  that  the  symbols 
of  a  Saviour's  love  are  distributed  by  a  man,  on  whose  head  n 


40    Review  of  Bishop  Savensa'oft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Bishop  has  laid  his  hands  ?  We  do  maintain,  that  it  is  the  holding  oi" 
the  same  great  system  of  truth,  which  constitutes  the  same  church, 
under  every  dispensation,  and  with  every  variety  of  external  form. 
We  proceed,  according  to  the  method  formerly  indicated,  to  ob- 
serve, that  the  unity  of  the  church  does  not  consist  in  what  bishop 
R.  supposes.  He  maintains  it  to  be  "  unity  of  faith  and  of  order  ;'■ 
and  in  the  term  order  he  includes  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  with 
all  its  administrations.  But  as  all  christian  societies  have  their 
ministry,  and  their  ordinances,  bishop  R.  must  mean  by  order,  what 
we  commonly  call  the  Episco[)al  ministry.  He  holds,  then,  that  a 
succession  of  diocesan  bishops  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the 
present  time,  with  the  two  orders  of  priests  and  deacons  under  them, 
is  necessary  to  the  unity  of  the  church;  and  that  all  who  are  sepa- 
rated from  a  ministry  precisely  of  this  character,  are  separated 
from  the  church  and  the  covenanted  mercies  of  God.  But  let  the 
prelate  speak  for  himself. 

"  To  bring  this  vital  subject  however,  in  some  definite  shape — and  you  to 
your  answer;  I  ask,  on  wliat  possible  principle,  is  the  divine  unity  of  tlie 
church  of  Christ,  reconcileable  with  the  existing  state  of  the  christian  world: 
Are  all  the  varieties  of  religious  profession  throughout  Christendom,  true 
branches  of  the  true  church — the  one  spouse  and  body  of  Christ — or,  only 
some  of  them  ?  Will  you  answer  this  plainly  and  directly,  and  give  us  the 
grounds  and  reasons  of  your  determination,  whatever  it  may  be,  that  we 
may  know  the  extent  of  that  fraternity,  which  modern  Presbyterians  mani- 
fest for  Congregationalists,  Independents,  Methodists,  Baptists,  Sec.  &c. — and 
may  also  learn,  if  it  can  be  communicated,  how  separation  and  exclusion,  are 
transformed  into  union  and  fellowship  ?  In  what  does  the  unity  of  the 
visible  church  consist  according  to  your  view  of  it  ?  Is  it  in  agreement  in 
faith  and  order,  or  of  faith  singly,  or  order  singly  ?  If  the  unity  of  the  church 
is  not  to  be  referred  ultimately,  to  the  authority  of  Christ,  originally  lodged 
with  his  Apostles,  as  the  root — to  what  is  it  td  he  referred  ?  Is  there  another 
principle  or  root  of  unity,  as  a  divine  character  or  mark  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  which  is  equally  verifiable  and  conclusive,  in  all  ages,  and  by  all  ca- 
pacities of  men  ?     If  there  be,  let  us  have  it,  plain  and  direct. 

"  Here,  sir,  is  the  dividing  line  between  us  —it  is  the  point  which  involves 
all  the  rest,  as  you  well  know,  and  decides  the  momentous  question,  of  church 
or  no  church,  in  a  divided  christian  world.  And  I  have  put  it  thus  directly, 
that  by  the  answer  given,  my  ignorance  of  the  subject  may  be  edified,  oi* 
the  delusion  spread  over  the  dissenting  community  of  christians,  may  be  re- 
moved." 

He  then  says,  in  his  own  peculiar  manner,  "  Sir,  my  principles 
are  open  and  avowed — I  have  no  purpose  of  concealment  or  deceit 
to  answer.  If  your  principles  are  of  the  same  character,  you  will 
meet  these  questions  with  the  frank  and  fearless  spirit  of  the  man, 
who  is  sincere  in  what  he  holds,  and  who  knows  that  he  must  be  a 
gainer  by  the  establishment  of  truth." — As  to  the  insinuations,  the 
egotism,  and  the  boastful  spirit  of  this  passage,  we  have  not  a  wOrd 
to  say — as  to  the  questions,  so  far  as  we  understand  them,  we  hate 
answers  prompt  and  decisive. 

The  Unity  of  the  Church,  then,  let  all  bishops  know,  consists 
essentially  in  that  which  constitutes  her  identity,  unity  of  doctrine 
in  matters  necessary  to  salvation.  But  this  answer  requires  consid- 
erable amplification.  That  all  doctrine  is  not  fundamental,  is  too 
generally  admitted  to  allow  of  any  controyersy.     It  is  conceded  that 


Meviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence,    4i 

men  may  differ  as  to  a  number  of  particulars,  and  yet  be  true  be=» 
lievers  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  heirs  of  salvation.  For  instance,  there 
was  doubtless  a  difference  of  opinion  in  the  primitive  church,  re- 
specting the  obligation  to  conform  to  the  law  of  Moses,  when  the 
Apostles,  Elders  and  brethren  came  together  to  consider  the  matter, 
as  recorded  in  Acts  xv.  Paul  certainly  maintained  the  abolition  of 
the  ceremonial  institute.  That  all  could  not  have  been  of  the  same 
mind  is  evident  from  this,  that  there  was  much  "  disputing,"  that 
is,  arguing  on  the  subject.  But  who  will  say  that  this  difference 
destroyed  the  unity  of  the  church,  or  put  those  on  one  side  or  the 
other  of  this  question,  out  of  the  christian  society?  Again:  that 
Usher  and  Leighton  and  others  of  former  days  ;  that  Newton,  Scott, 
Milner  and  other  distinguished  ornaments  of  the  modern  Episcopal 
denomination,  held  Cuhinistic  sentiments  is  undeniable  ;  that  other 
members  of  that  society  (with  what  consistency  we  must  be  par- 
doned for  being  unable  to  see)  hold  Arminian  opinions,  will  not  be 
doubted.  But  does  bishop  R.  say  that  these  varying,  and  indeed 
directly  opposing  sentiments,  exclude  either  party  from  the  church, 
and  from  the  covenanted  of  mercies  God  ?  He  will  not  say  this  of 
the  Arminian  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  we  are  sure. 
Usher  and  Leighton  were  both  archbishops,  and  of  course  were  in 
the  church.  Newton,  Scott  and  Milner  had  Episcopal  hands  laid 
on  them,  and  received  beneficesin  the  church  ;  certainly  then  they 
could  not  have  been  out  of  the  church  !  And  if  differences  in  point 
of  doctrine  such  as  separate  Arminians  and  Calvinists  do  not  exclude 
them  from  the  church,  that  is,  do  not  break  the  unity  of  the  church, 
surely  it  is  not  destroyed  by  the  difference  in  point  of  order  be- 
tween an  Episcopalian  and  a  Presbyterian.  But  this  by  the  way. 
There  are  truths,  which  men  must  believe,  or  they  cannot  be  united 
to  Christ.  There  are  others,  in  relation  to  which  they  may  differ, 
and  not  thereby  prevent  this  union.  If  bishop  R.  wishes  for  our 
summary  of  fundamental  doctrines,  we  are  ready  to  give  it  in  dis- 
tinct articles. 

1.  The  existence  and  perfections  of  God  the  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit,  as  revealed  in  the  Bible. 

2.  The  truth,  inspiration,  and  divine  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 

3.  The  Apostacy  and  consequent  total  depravity  of  man. 

4.  Justification  by  faith  in  Christ  alone,  as  our  only  mediator  and 
atoning  sacrifice. 

5.  Regeneration  and  Sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  Holy  living  as  the  only  satisfactory  evidence  of  justifying  faith, 

7.  The  Resurrection  of  the  dead. 

8.  The  final  Judgment,  in  which  eternal  life  will  be  awarded  to 
the  righteous,  and  everlasting  punishment  to  the  impenitent  and  un- 
believing. 

We  believe  that  all  who,  with  the  whole  heart,  receive  these 
doctrines,  are  united  to  Christ,  and  belong  to  that  one  body,  of 
which  he  is  the  Head  and  King  ;  that  they  are  bound  to  recognise 
each  other  as  brethren,  and  hold  communion  as  disciples  of  a  com- 
mon Lord  ;  and  that  any  who  reject  from  the  fellowship  of  saints, 
^hose  who  receive  and  live  by  these  truths,  are  schismatical  and 


42     Review  of  Bishop  Ka-censcroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

contentious,  laying  a  stress  on  outward  things,  which  Jesus  Christ 
has  not  laid,  and  thus  deeply  injuring  the  true  interests  of  the 
church  which  he  has  purchased  with  his  blood.  Here  are  the 
principles  on  which  we  are  willing  to  hold  communion  with  Epis- 
copalians, Methodists,  Baptists,  Congregationali.sts,  or  Christians  of 
any  outward  form  whatever.  We  hope  that  this  is  frank  and  fear- 
less enough  for  the  bishop.  But  we  wish  to  explain  this  matter  of 
the  church's  unity  a  little  farther.  The  Apostle  Paul,  Eph.  iv,  4 
— 6,  puts  this  subject  in  a  most  clear  and  intelligible  point  of  light, 
when  he  says,  "  There  is  one  body,  and  one  spirit,  even  as  ye  are 
called  in  hope  of  your  calling;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism; 
one  God  and  father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in 
you  all."  The  one  body,  here  is  the  church.  Its  unity  consists  in 
a  number  of  particulars  :  unity  of  faith  in  one  God,  the  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit  ; — unity  of  hope,  arising  from  belief  in  the  same 
Saviour,  and  reliance  on  the  influences  of  the  same  Spirit  ; — unity 
o(  baptism,  as  binding  men  to  the  same  body,  and  to  the  profession 
of  the  same  faith.  In  relation  to  this  last  particular,  it  deserves  to 
be  remarked,  that  according  to  the  rubricks  of  the  Episcopal  church, 
this  unity  of  baptism  does  not  depend  on  the  form  of  administration, 
for  this  may  be  either  sprinkling  or  immersion.  If  the  same  truth 
is  represented  by  these  different  modes,  it  is  the  same  sacrament. 
And  so  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  these  ordinances  are  significant 
of  the  same  saving  truth,  and  seals  of  the  same  "  righteousness  of 
faith,"  different  modes  of  administering  and  receiving  make  no  dif- 
ference at  all  material  :  they  certainly  do  not  destroy  the  unity  of 
the  church.  We  may  then  acknowledge  as  fellow  christians,  one 
who  has  been  immersed  ;  another  who  has  been  sprinkled  ;  and  a 
third  who  has  had  water  poured  on  him.  We  see,  then,  that  the 
essential  matter  of  the  unity  of  the  church  consists  in  unity  of  doc- 
trine. If  the  same  fundamental  truths  are  received  by  a  living 
faith,  there  is  the  same  church,  no  matter  what  the  differences  in 
external  form  and  order  of  a  particular  society.  And  they  who 
deny  this,  make  a  great  deal  more  of  outward  matters,  than  Christ 
and  his  Apostles  did. — We  conclude  then,  that. 

The  church  of  Christ  is  the  same,  in  all  ages,  and  under  all 
changes  of  outward  form,  how  great  soever  they  were,  because  its 
members  held  the  same  fundamental  truths.  And  for  the  very  same 
reason,  the  different  branches  of  the  church,  though  differing  in 
points  of  inferior  importance,  and  in  matters  of  outward  form,  yet 
constitute  the  same  body.  He  who  denies  this  appears  strangely 
to  misunderstand  the  true  character  of  the  gospel.  He  has  yet  to 
learn  that  its  whole  efficiency  depends  on  the  truth  carried  to  the 
understanding  and  the  conscience.  It  is  the  truth  which  sanctifies 
the  heart  ;  which  lays  the  foundation  for  all  our  hopes  ;  and  pre- 
pares us  to  hold  communion  with  God  in  a  region  of  perfect  purity. 
When  we  think  of  these  things,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  express 
our  surprise  and  sorrow,  at  seeing  christian  ministers  magnify 
mere  modes,  and  means,  and  instruments,  into  matters  of  vital  im- 
portance, on  which  the  hopes  of  man  for  eternity  are  suspended. 

3.  In  the  next  place,  we  observe  that  the  purpose  and  powers 
of  the  christian  ministry,  are  not  what  bishop  R.  imagines  them  to  be. 


HevieUD  of  Bishop  Kavenscrofl*s  Vindication  and  Defence,    43 

That  the  reader  may  understantl  our  views  of  this  subject,  he 
ought  to  have  distinct  notions  of  the  nature  and  constitution  of  the 
church,  as  it  was  organized  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  We  have 
already  given  a  general  sketch  of  tliis  subject,  but  it  is  important 
that  it  should  be  considered  more  particularly. 

Under  the  old  dispensation,  a  large  and  important  part  of  the  ser- 
vice was  intended  to  foreshow  Christ  and  the  benefits  which  he  pro- 
cures for  believers.  According  to  the  Apostle  Paul,  this  was  the 
great  design  of  the  priesthood  and  of  the  temple  service.  They 
were  types  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  sacrifice  to  be,  once  for  all,  made 
by  him  for  the  sins  of  men.  In  all  these  things,  then,  as  long  as 
the  dispensation  lasted,  there  was  to  be  no  change,  except  what  the 
mortality  of  man  made  unavoidable  in  the  persons  of  the  priests. 
In  regard  to  the  priestly  office,  "  no  man  took  this  honour  on  him- 
self, but  he  that  was  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron."  And  it  would 
have  been  the  most  daring  presumption  for  any  one  to  have  set 
himself  up  as  a  type  and  representation  of  Christ,  and  to  have  of- 
fered sacrifices  to  God  without  special  authority  from  heaven.  But 
in  all  cases,  where  the  simple  office  was  to  afford  instruction,  we 
find  no  such  particular  prescription.  This  is  evident  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  synagogue  worship,  as  set  up  by  the  Jews,  and  recog- 
nised by  our  Saviour. 

When  he  who  had  been  set  forth  by  the  priesthood  and  the  teni" 
pie  service  came,  and  completed  his  work,  then  the  whole  Levitical 
institute  was  abolished,  and  a  human  priesthood  forever  ceased. 
We  wish  our  readers  to  bear  this  in  mind  ;  and  therefore  we  re- 
peat that  there  is  no  priest  recognised  in  the  gospel  but  the  great 
*' high  priest  of  our  profession,"  Jesus  Christ.  If  indeed  were- 
gard  the  etymological  meaning  of  the  word  priest,  and  make  it 
synonimous  with  presbyter,  there  is  no  sort  of  objection  to  the  use 
of  it.  But  this  is  not  its  ordinar}'  signification.  It  is  a  translation 
of  the  Greek  word  lEpEVg  or  of  the  Latin  Sacerdos,  and  designates 
one  who  is  divinely  appointed  to  offer  gifts  and  sacrifices  to  God  on 
the  part  of  the  people,  and  to  bring  back  to  the  people  answers 
from  God.  Of  course,  the  offering  which  he  makes,  and  he  alone 
dares  to  make,  is  accepted  for  the  people  ;  and  they  are  obliged, 
on  pain  of  the  displeasure  of  heaven,  to  receive  and  obey  the  an- 
swer brought  back  by  tiie  priest.  Now  there  is  nothing  of  all  this 
in  the  New  Testament.  And  there  is  no  analogy  between  the  of- 
fice of  a  priest  and  that  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  The  Levitical 
priesthood  represented  the  coming  Saviour  ;  and  the  analogy,  in 
this  case,  is  between  thejr  office  and  the  office  of  the  Redeemer. 
It  is  a  lamentable  error,  then,  for  ministers  of  the  gospel  to  derive 
conclusions  respecting  their  office  and  powers,  from  the  priesthood 
of  the  former  dispensation.  There  is  nothing  of  all  this  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  Apostles  never  thought  of  assuming  this  honour  ; 
and  it  was  not  claimed  until  the  attempt  was  made  to  raise  the  clergy 
above  the  station  in  which  their  Master  placed  them. 

Having  shown  that  the  temple  service  throws  no  light  on  the  or- 
ganization of  the  church  under  the  present  dispensation,  let  us  look 
now  to  the  New  Testament.  The  word  (exx?.yj<yia)  rendered 
6 


44    Review  of  Bishop  JiavenscroJVs  Vindicaiion  and  lytfencc. 

cJiurch  is  used  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles  in  a  co7)xmon,  and  in  a 
sacred  sense.     In  the  former,  it  means  an  assemby  of  citizens  con- 
vened for  the  transaction  of  civil  business  :  Acts  xix,  38,  "in  a  law- 
ful assembly,  ev  tt  evvo[.tXi)  exxT^^Cia.      In  the  latter  sense,  it  is 
used  to  signify,  1.  The  whole  number  of  Christ's  disciples,  con- 
sidered as  a  body,  of  which  he  is  the  head;  Matt,  xvi,  J  8.  "On 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  it."     Eph.  i,  22,  23.  "  and  he  gave  him  to  be  head 
over  all  things  to  the  church,  which  is  his  body,  &c."     2.  The 
word  means,  in  its  most  common  acceptation,  an  assembly,  or  as- 
sociation of  believers,  united  together  for  worship,  as  in  1  Cor.  i,  CJ. 
"the   church  of  God  which  is  in  Corinth."     Acts  viii,   1.  "the 
church  which  was  at  Jerusalem,"  and  many  other  passages.      It 
deserves  remark  too,  that  in  the  New  Testament,  when  more  than 
one  congregation  is  mentioned,  the  word  is  invariably  used  in  the 
plural  number  :  thus  we  have  Rom.  xvi,  4.  "  The  churches  of  the 
Gentiles  :"  2  Cor.  viii,  1.  "  the  churches  of  Macedonia  :"  Gal.  i, 
2.  "  the  churches  of  Galatia,"  ver.  22.  "  the  churches  of  Judea  :" 
Rom.  xvi,  16.  "  the  churches  of  Christ  :"   1   Thess.  ii,   14.  and 
2  Thess.  i,  4.  "  the  churches  of  God." — According  to  scriptural 
usage  then,  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  the  church  consists  of 
all  those  throughout  the  world,  who  profess  the  religion  of  Christ; 
and  that  a  particular    church,  such    for    instance    as  one  of  the 
churches  in  Judea,  consists  of  a  number  of  persons  associated  to- 
gether, according  to  the  law  of  Christ,  for  the  worship  of  God,  and 
for  holy  living. 

We  have  before  shown,  that  an  Association  of  this  kind  is,  in  the 
•very  nature  of  the  case,  a  voluntary  Association.     The  society  is 
indeed  formed  under  the  authority  of  God  ;  but  it  is  in  willing  obe- 
dience to  this  authority.     It  is  the  greatest  of  all  absurdities  to 
speak  of  involuntary  religious  service.     Religion,  too,  is  primarily  a 
r)erso7ial  concern.     When  one  is  made  a  christian,  it  is  by  learning 
its  truth,  feeling  its  power,  and  under  its  influence  for«iing  a  union 
with  the  people  of  Christ.     If,  then,  we  conceive  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  particular  church,  we  must  think  of  it  in  some  such  way 
as  this. — A  number  of  persons  hear  the  gospel,  study  the  scriptures, 
agree  as  to  the  doctrines  contained  in  them  and  the  worship  pre- 
scribed, and  associate  on  the  principle  of  obeying  the  law  of  Christ 
according  to  their  understanding  of  its  true  meaning.     This  they 
do  under  their  responsibility  to  God,  and  to  him  alone.     There  is 
no  power  on  earth  to  prescribe  to  them  laws  and  bind  them  to  obe- 
dience.    If  these   men  truly  interpret  and  sincerely  obey  the  law 
of  Christ,  they  are  owned  as  his  people,  and  partake  of  the  bless- 
ings which  he  has  procured  :  if  they  misinterpret  or  disobey  this 
law,  he  disowns  them.     The  case  is  in  principle  the  same,  when 
one  joins  himself  to  a  church  already  organized.     He  is  convinced 
that  the  true  doctrine  of  Christ  is  taught  in  that  society  and  wishing 
to  partake  of  the  blessings  of  which  that  doctrine  gives  him  the  as- 
surance, he  for  this  reason,  unites  himself  to  the  Association. 

All  this  implies  knowledge  of  the  truth,  reception  of  it,  and  sub- 
missioTi  to  its  requirements.     And  it  never  can  be  too  often  repeat- 


R'cviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojfs  Vindication  and  Defence.    45 

ed  that  the  whole  efficiency  of  religion  is  the  efficiency  of  truth. 
Now  for  the  pvirpose  of  facility  in  gaining  knowledge  of  the  truth, 
the  Head  of  the  church,  in  his  wisdom  and  goodness,  appointed  as 
teachers  of  his  religion,  men  who  had  known  its  power,  and  were 
fully  instructed  in  its  doctrines.  He  also  gave  sufficiently  clear  in- 
dications that  the  office  of  teacher  was  to  be  perpetual  in  the 
church  ; — the  reason  of  it  always  exists.  Here,  then,  we  see  what 
is  the  great  end  of  the  christian  ministry.  And  really  we  are  unable 
to  see  how  any  one  can  read  the  New  Testament,  without  perceiv- 
ing this  truth.  From  beginning  to  end,  little  is  said  of  the  polity 
or  order  of  the  church,  or  the  authority  of  its  ministry:  but  the 
business  of  instruction  is  every  where  insisted  on  as  their  great  ap- 
propriate duty.  "  The  things  which  thou  had  heard  of  me  among 
many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou  unto  faithful  men,  who  shall 
be  able  to  teach  others  also."  2  Tim.  ii,  2,  and  verse  24.  "  The 
servant  of  the  Lord  must  be  apt  to  teach,^^  ver.  25,  "  in  meekness, 
'instructing  them  who  oppose  themselves."  Chap,  i,  13.  "  Hold 
fast  the  form  of  sound  words,  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me."  Paul's 
epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  are  full  of  exhortations  and  charges 
of  this  kind.  And  of  himself  he  says,  1  Corinthians  i,  17.  "Christ 
sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel."  Gal.  i,  15,  16. 
^'  When  it  pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my  mother's  womb, 
and  called  me  by  his  grace  to  reveal  his  son  in  me,  that  I  might 
preach  him  among  the  heathen,  &.c."  The  great  business  of  the 
ministry  is  preaching  the  gospel.  This  accords  precisely  with  the 
whole  character  and  design  of  Christianity  as  a  system  of  truth,  and 
deriving  its  whole  saving  efficacy  from  the  power  of  truth.  Cler- 
gymen are  teachers  in  the  school  of  Christ ;  and  this  is  their  highest 
character.  The  Bible  is  their  text  book.  Hence,  the  unquestion- 
able soundness  of  our  remark,  that  he  is  the  best  minister  of  Christ, 
who  most  perfectly  understands  religious  truth,  most  deeply  feels 
its  power,  and  most  affectionately  commends  it  to  the  acceptance  of 
others. — We  cannot  help  remarking  that  the  imposition  of  a  bishop's 
hands  does  do  good  in  this  case.  We  have  read  and  heard  a  great 
deal  about  the  virtue  of  what  is  called  apostolical  succession.  For 
the  life  of  us,  we  never  could  get  down  to  the  meaning  of  this  thing; 
but  we  are  perfectly  sure  that  it  has  no  efficacy  in  this  most  impor- 
tant part  of  a  minister's  office.  Undeniable  facts  afford  most  decis- 
ive evidence  that  there  is  no  stream  of  wisdom  or  knowledge  run- 
ning through  the  succession,  and  pouring  out  its  rills,  through 
Episcopal  fingers,  into  those  on  whom  bishops  lay  their  hands. 

But  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  carefully  consider  the  true 
character  of  ecclesiastical  power,  before  we  can  bring  the  dispute 
between  us  and  the  bishop  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  This  is  a 
subject  which  all  ought  to  understand,  for  it  concerns  them  much. 
The  church  and  the  world  have  suffered  infinite  evils  from  the  mis- 
takes of  the  ignorant,  and  the  perversions  of  the  aspiring  in  relation 
to  this  very  thing.  It  is  high  time  that  the  people  should  be  so 
informed,  as  to  preserve  them  from  the  errors  zealously  propagated 
in  this  country  at  the  present  day. 

And  here  we  lay  it  down  as  an  indisputable  truth  that,  in  regard 
to  the  subject  now  before  us,  the  great  difference  between  the  church 


46   Beviexv  of  Bishop  Itavenscrojt's  Vindication  and  JJejence. 

and  any  other  voluntary  association  is  this  ; — voluntary  associations 
ordinarily  have  the  power  of  framing  their  own  laws,  while  the 
christian  society  is  organized  on  the  principle  of  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  Christ.  TIjis  observation  determines  the  o?rto«n<  of  eccle- 
siastical power  at  once.  There  can,  properly  speaking,  be  no 
legislation  in  the  church.  The  enactments  of  the  Lord  of  consci- 
ence can  alone  bind  the  conscience.  In  regard  to  things  indifferent 
(res  adiaphorae)  the  church  can  agree  on  rules  of  expediency,  but 
she  can  make  no  laws.  She  can  only  receive  as  menibers  of  the 
Association  those  who  profess  obedience  to  the  laws  of  Christ's 
kingdom  ;  instruct  them  wherein  they  are  ignorant ;  admonish  and 
rebuke,  in  the  spirit  of  meekness  and  love,  the  disobedient.  And 
if  any  are  found  incorrigible,  she  can  only  say,  that  she  owns 
them  no  longer  as  members.  Beyond  this,  the  church  has  no  right 
to  go.  And  we  do  here  challenge  any  man  to  show  that,  as  organ- 
ized by  the  Apostles,  she  has  any  more  power  than  this. 

But  here  is  a  question  of  very  great  importance — who  is  the  de- 
positary of  this  power  ?  This  is  a  dividing  point  between  us  and 
liigh-churchmen  of  all  orders.  VVe  lay  it  down  as  a  fundamental 
principle  in  our  system  of  polity,  that  ecclesiastical  power  is,  by  the 
Lord  Jesus  Clirist,  vested  in  the  Church  :  it  belongs  to  the  body  of 
the  FAITHFUL  PEOPLE.  Oup  Opponents  maintain,  that  it  is  commit- 
ted by  the  Head  of  the  church  directly  to  the  christian  ministry  :  that 
the  ministry  consists  of  an  order  of  men  differing  from  the  laity  ; 
and  that  it  is  their  business  to  come  between  God  and  man,  to  trans- 
act business  with  men  for  heaven  ;  authoritatively  to  interpret  for 
men  the  word  of  God  ;  and,  by  administering  the  sacraments,  to 
give  them  assurance  of  salvation  :  in  a  word,  they  "  are  substitutes 
lor  Christ's  person  on  earth."  Now  we  hold  this  doctrine  to  be 
utterly  popish  and  heretical,  inconsistent  with  the  nature  of  true 
religion  as  a  voluntary  service,  incompatible  with  christian  libert}'', 
and  well  suited  to  give  an  undue  influence  to  the  ministers  of  reli- 
gion. The  general  admission  of  these  pretensions,  was  one  cause, 
and  that  not  the  least  efficient,  in  producing  the  great  corruption  of 
the  church.  It  brought  about  that  subjugation  of  the  mind  to  ec- 
clesiastical power,  which  was  one  of  the  striking  characteristics  of 
the  age  of  darkness,  through  which  the  church  groped  for  nearly 
ten  centuries.  Nor  does  religion  alone  suffer  by  the  admission  of 
these  pretensions.  They  clothe  ecclesiastics  with  a  power,  to  which 
nothing  on  earth  is  equal,  and  to  which,  after  an  unavailing  struggle, 
every  thing  submits.  What  will  we  not  surrender  to  a  man,  to 
whom  we  have  surrendered  the  right  of  directing  our  conscience  ; 
and  whom  we  regard  as  invested  with  authority  from  heaven  to  re- 
ceive us  into  the  church,  or  repel  us  from  it ;  to  give  us  assurance 
of  salvation,  or  cut  us  oft' from  the  hope  of  mercy  ? 

No  ;  the  power  which  the  Lord  Jesus  gave,  is  vested  in  his 
church — in  the  great  company  of  believers  ;  the  Society  organized 
according  to  his  laws.  Of  this,  we  have  decisjive  evidence  in  scrip- 
ture. Matt,  xviii,  17.  "  And  if  he  shall  neglect  to  hear  them,  tell 
IT  to  the  church,"  but  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him 
be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican."  The  original  word 
here  used  is  the  commoa  one,  (exxT^yidia,)  and  it  is  admitted  by 


lieviexv  of  Bishop  llavcnscrqft^s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence.    47' 

the  best  expositors,  that  it  means  the  society  formed  by  Jesus 
Christ,  for  religious  purposes.  See  Lightfoot  Hor.  Talm.  and  Vit- 
ringa,  de  Vet.  Lyn.  Pa.  97.  In  conformity  to  this  command  of  our 
Saviour,  the  Apostle  Paul  directs  the  Church  in  Corinth  to  cast  out 
the  oflender,  who  had  brought  on  them  shame  and  trouble.  And 
in  referring  to  this  subject  he  says,  2  Cor.  ii,  6.  '*•  SufRcientis  this 
punishment,  which  was  inflicted  of  many."  (vno  IcdV  7lX€lov(dV,) 
Hence  it  appears  that  the  poAf?r  of  rejecting  members,  from  this 
voluntary  association,  accordmg  to  the  appointment  of  Christ,  is 
vested  in  the  society. 

Again  :  Paul  addressing  the  church  at  Rome,  Rom.  xvi,  17.  says, 
"Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions 
and  otfences,  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and 
avoid  them."  2  Thess.  iii,  6.  "Now  we  command  you  brethren, 
in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  th.it  ye  withdraw  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the  tradition  which 
ye  received  of  us."  In  1  John  iv,  1.  we  find  the  Apostle  saying, 
"  Brethren,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether 
they  are  of  God  ;  because  many  false  propliets  are  gone  out  into 
the  world."  All  these  directions  are  given  to  the  body  of  the 
faithful.  They  are  required  to  mark  the  disorderly,  that  is  such 
as  do  not  conform  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ  ;  to  distinguish  true  and 
false  teachers,  and  to  reject  the  latter,  while  they  approve  the  for- 
mer. Hence  we  infer  the  induiutable  right  of  a  church,  to  choose 
its  own  religious  teachers  ;  and  separate  from  themselves,  mem- 
bers who  refuse  to  submit  to  the  law  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

What  further  evidence  is  necessary  to  show  that,  according  to 
the  will  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  power  which  he  has  given  is  vested 
in  the  church  ?  But  it  also  accords  with  his  will,  that  this  voluntary 
association  should  execute  the  great  purposes  of  its  organization, 
according  to  the  obvious  dictates  of  prudence  and  common  sense. 
In  all  societies  it  is  necessary  that  officers  should  be  appointed,  to 
transact  the  business  of  the  society,  according  to  its  constitution. 
The  power  of  the  Association  belongs  to  the  whole  body  of  the 
members.  But  the  exercise  of  it  is  delegated  to  the  officers. — 
What  they  do,  as  representatives  of  the  members,  according  to  the 
constitution,  is  done  by  the  members.  So  in  general  it  is  in  the 
church.  Ecclesiastical  power,  as  far  as  there  is  any,  belongs  to 
the  people  ;  but  the  exercise  of  it  is  committed  to  the  officers  of 
the  church.  The  various  duties  of  these  officers  correspond  to  the. 
nature  and  objects  of  the  Association.  By  far  the  most  important 
part  of  this  duty  consists,  as  has  already  been  shown,  in  exhibition 
of  the  truth,  as  Christ  has  revealed  it.  The  exhibition  of  truth  in- 
cludes the  administration  of  the  sacraments  :  because,  the  sacra- 
ments are  signijicant  actions,  which  vvhen  properly  explained,  do 
in  the  most  striking  manner  represent  the  truth  to  our  under- 
standings. As  for  the  rest,  it  consi.-ts  in  admitting  members,  into 
tlie  Association,  and  rejecting  from  it,  those  who  will  not  obey  the 
commands  of  Christ. 

That  the  officers  of  the  christian  society  have  no  power  separate 
and  distinct  from  that  of  the  church,  appears  to  us  most  manifest 
from  the  passages  of  scripture  before  quoted.     The  Bible  contains 


1 S    Reviexv  of  Bishop  Havenscroft's  Vindication  and  JDeJ'enct. 

the  rule  both  of  doctrine  and  discipline.  Preachers  of  the  gospel 
are  teachers  appointed  to  assist  the  people  in  understanding  the  will 
of  God.  If  they  teach  doctrines  contrary  to  this  will,  the  people 
are  bound  by  the  command  of  God  to  withdraw  from  them.  They 
must  then  be  judges  in  this  case;  and  form  opinions  under  their 
responsibility  to  God  alone.  "  Try  the  spirits,"  is  the  precept 
addressed  to  the  whole  body  of  the  f;iithful.  The  people  associat- 
ed on  the  principle  of  obedience  to  th<-  law  of  Christ,  must  be  con- 
vinced that  what  they  hear  is  the  truth  taught  by  Christ,  or  there 
can  be  no  obligation  to  obey.  And  obedience  is  not  rendered  at 
all  because  the  church  officer  pronounces  the  law,  but  because  he 
tells  what  the  law  o/*  Christ  is.  Bishop  R.'s  plan  of  verifying  the 
church  by  the  ministry  is  utterly  preposterous.  The  truth  ib,  it  is 
the  Bible  which  enables  us  to  verif}-  the  ministry,  and  all  their 
administrations.  This  is  the  plain  scriptural  statement  of  the  case 
according  to  the  passages  before  quoted.  Commo.n  sense,  too,  coin- 
cides here  as  it  does  every  where,  with  the  rules  of  scripture.  The 
thing  is  thus — The  Bible  contains  a  system  of  truth,  by  the  moral 
power  of  which  we  are  to  be  fitted  for  heaven.  They  are  true 
ministers  of  Christ  who  truly  preach  his  doctrine.  If  any,  however 
they  may  have  been  ordained,  preach  not  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
they  are  not  ministers  of  Christ.  As  teaching  is  their  great  business, 
so  teaching  the  truth  is  decisive  of  their  character.  It  is  by  this  that 
they  are  to  be  verified.  And  we  never  can  sufficiently  wonder  that  a 
Protestant  should  leave  these  plain  principles,  and  put  the  hopes  of 
man  for  salvation  on  the  utter  impossibility  of  proving  in  any  par- 
ticular case  what  is  called  apostolical  succession.  Yes  ;  it  is  the 
Bible  which  enables  us  to  verify  the  church,  and  the  ministry,  and 
the  sacraments — "  I  say  the  Bible  is  the  religion  of  Protestants." 
And  here  we  venture  to  propose  a  few  questions  growing  out  of  this 
subject,  which  we  wish  bishop  R.  to  digest  at  his  leisure. 

1.  If  preachers  of  the  gospel,  however  ordained,  teach  doctrines 
contrary  to  the  will  of  Christ,  are  the  people  bound  to  believe  them  ? 

2.  If  the  officers  of  the  church  receive  into  the  christian  societ}'', 
adult  persons  who  do  not  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  does  Christ 
receive  them  ? 

3.  If  through  ignorance,  prejudice  or  passion  they  repel  from 
the  church  those  who  do  repent  and  believe,  does  Christ  reject 
them  ? 

4.  If  they  administer  the  sacraments  in  form,  but  are  utterly  ig- 
norant of  the  spiritual  truths  represented  by  them,  and  administer 
to  equally  ignorant  people,  do  they  administer,  and  do  the  people 
receive  true  sacraments  ? 

But  leaving  the  bishop  to  ponder  these  interrogatories  and  pro- 
nounce as  shall  seem  good  to  him;  we  proceed  a  little  farther  with 
our  views  of  the  church.  Christ  we  have  seen  has  left  all  the 
power  which  he  chose  should  be  exercised,  to  the  church.  But 
according  to  the  ordinary  principles  of  convenience  and  prudence 
this  power  is  delegated  to  the  officers  of  the  church.  The  parti- 
cular form,  however,  of  church  government  is  not  drawn  out  in  the 
scriptures.  If  it  is,  why  can  it  not  be  plainly  stated,  so  as  at  once 
tQ  settle  this  much  disputed  point  ?     But  this  never  has  been  done 


Meviexv  of  Bishop  liai)enscroJV s  Vindication  and  Defence.    49 

by  any  of  the  advocates  of  divine  right,  and  we  boldly  say  that  it 
never  can  be  done.  We  challenge  any  man,  or  set  of  men  on  the 
earth  to  do  it.  A  few  examples,  and  a  i'ew  general  principles  are 
all  that  we  find  in  the  Bible.  There  must  be  teachers  in  the  church, 
and  there  must  be  discipline.  If  the  church  chooses  among  the 
teachers,  to  invest  one  with  the  office  of  inspecting  and  superintend- 
ing his  brethren,  we  have  nothing  to  say  against  it.  Only  let  that 
one  remember,  as  Jerome  expresses  it,  that  he  is  superior  to  his 
brethren  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  and  not  by  the  appointment 
of  the  Lord.  If  others  prefer  to  follow  the  original  example,  and 
keep  all  religious  teachers  in  a  state  ■  f  official  equality,  we  do  high- 
ly approve  the  determination.  But  in  either  case,  we  would  have 
the  teachers  to  remember  that  they  do  not  stand  between  God 
and  man,  deriving  their  authority  directly  from  heaven,  and  em- 
powered to  bind  the  consciences  of  their  fellow  creatures. 

Our  view  of  this  subject  may  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  civil 
government.  Scripture  says  "the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of 
God."  This  declaration  is  received  very  differently  by  different 
men.  A  pensioned  advocate  of  legitimacy  uses  it  to  prove  the  di- 
vine right  of  kings.  We  are  sure  that  if  we  chose  it,  we  could 
bring  a  better  argument  for  monarchy  from  the  Bible,  than  our  Bi- 
shop has  done  for  prelacy.  But  an  enlightened  republican  sees  at 
once  through  the  sophistry  of  all  reasonings  of  this  kind.  The 
Bible  teaches  no  more  than  that  civil  government  is  agreeable  to 
the  will  of  God,  and  that  it  is  not  a  matter  to  be  meddled  with  by 
the  teachers  of  religion.  If  the  people  prefer  a  monarchical  govern- 
ment, as  in  England,  be  it  so.  If  they  choose  a  republic  as  in  the 
United  States,  so  much  the  better.  But  all  the  time  the  power  is 
in  the  people.  In  like  manner,  it  is  the  will  of  God  that  his  church 
should  be  under  a  form  of  government  suited  to  its  nature  as  a  vol- 
untary association  formed  to  give  efficiency  to  revealed  truth.  And 
the  church  is  not  organized  without  its  officers.  The  ministry 
then  may  be  said  to  be  of  divine  appointment.  It  truly  is  ordained  of 
God,  because  it  is  the  will  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  that  there 
should  be  teachers  of  the  truth  in  the  christian  society.  But  far- 
ther than  this,  the  divine  right  of  priests  is  as  great  a  fable  as  the 
divine  right  of  kings.  It  was  originally  invented  for  the  same  pur- 
pose; and  we  are  truly  sorry  to  observe  that  these  old  mischievous 
notions  are  revived  in  this  country  and  this  age. 

Having  stated  our  views  thus  far,  respecting  the  purpose  and 
powers  of  the  christian  ministry,  we  find  this  a  proper  occasion  for 
inquiring,  how,  according  to  the  scriptures,  men  are  invested  with 
this  oflice.  The  technical  term  for  this  investiture  is  ordination. 
We  are  brought  to  the  subject  by  the  following  passage  in  the  work 
imder  Pteview. 

'In  my  Farewell  Sermon,  p.  8—1  lay  down  the  following-,  as  the  just  and 
only  certain  metliod  of  determining  this  question.  "If  tlie  authority  by 
which  any  denomination  of  christians  minister  in  sacred  things  cannot  be 
.  shown,  to  be  derived  from  the  apostles  of  Christ,  that  is  cannot  be  verified 
as  a  fact,  sucti  denomination  cannot  be  a  true  branch  of  that  catholic  apos- 
tolic  church,  in  which  we  profess  to  believe."  In  your  Review  p.  647,  you 
give  your  view  of  the  subject  in  these  words  ; 

"If  an  association  calling  itself  a  church,  administers  baptism,  in  the  name 
cf  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit— celebrates  the  Lord's  Supper,  pvinp 


50    Review  of  Bishop  Kavenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

bread  and  wine  to  the  communicants,  as  memorials  of  the  broken  body  and 
shed  blood  of  the  Lord  Jesus — puts  the  pure  word  of  God  into  tlie  hands  of 
the  people — teaches  tlie  doctrines  of  Christ,  sucli  as  "the  entire  spiritual 
death  and  alienation  of  man  from  God — the  reconciliation  of  God  to  the 
world  by  the  sufferings  and  deatli  of  his  only  begotten  Son — the  atonement 
of  his  blood — ^justification  by  faith — acceptance  through  the  merits  of  the 
Saviour  -conversion  of  the  heart  to  God — holiness  of  life,  the  only  evidence 
of  it,  and  the  grace  of  God,  in  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  sole  agent 
from  first  to  last,  in  working  out  our  salvation  from  sin  here,  and  from  hell 
hereafter;"  and  finally,  has  a  ministry  trained  for  the  work,  and  qualified 
to  impart  spiritual  instruction — we  have  no  doubt  but  there  is  a  true  church 
of  Christ  whether  tiieir  ministers  are  set  apart  to  their  work  "by  the  laying 
on  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery"  as  in  the  days  of  Paul,  or  by  the  ordination 
of  a  Bishop,  as  is  the  practice  of  some  modern  cliurches." 

•Without  stopping  to  notice  the  abundant  matter  for  animadversion,  which 
this  very  guardedly  equivocal  expression  of  your  views  on  the  divine  right 
of  the  christian  ministry,  presents;  I  accept  it  as  an  acknowledgment,  that 
you  consider  ordination  essential  to  that  office.  But  as  you  do  not  say  in 
what  sense  you  consider  it  essential,  I  must  therefore  ask  whether  it  is  a 
mere  designation  to  office  for  notoriety  of  the  person,  or  as  imparting  a  cha- 
racter, that  you  think  it  essential  ?  On  the  answer  to  this  much  depends, 
through  whatever  channel  the  ordaining  power  is  transmitted,  whether 
through  Presbyters  or  Bishops.  As  you  admit  however,  that  the  ministerial 
office  is  a  divine  institution,  I  must  suppose  you  also  to  admit,  that  ordina- 
tion confers  or  imparts  a  character  ;  and  as  the  ministerial  character  is  a  di- 
vine right  to  transact  the  affairs  of  Christ's  kingdom,  ordination  must  conse- 
quently be  the  only  evidence  (miracles  excepted)  of  divine  right — the  sub- 
stitute to  us,  for  miraculous  attestation  to  the  ministerial  commission.  If 
this  reasoning  be  correct,  it  also  follows  necessarily,  that  as  this  evidence  of 
divine  right  is  fopthe  benefit  of  third  persons — it  must  be  verifiable — it  must 
be  capable  of  proof,  as  a  fact.' 

The  general  view  which  we  have  taken  of  this  subject  is  such  as 
this — According  to  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  efficacy  of  the  gospel, 
as  has  already  been  shown,  depends  on  the  truth  which  it  reveals, 
and  on  that  truth  as  understood  and  cordially  received.  Hence  the 
importance  of  religious  teachers,  and  the  reason  why,  in  every  age, 
it  is  the  will  of  Christ  that  men  should  be  employed  in  the  office. 
But  in  the  church  as  organized  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  nothing 
is  known  of  a  difference  of  order.  This  is  a  figment  of  men  in  after 
times,  who  in  their  ardent  aspirings  to  power,  struck  out  this  inven- 
tion to  secure  to  themselves  greater  reverence,  and  more  com- 
plete submission  on  the  part  of  the  people.  That  there  were 
different  offices  in  the  christian  church,  and  that  the  duties  of  one 
officer  ought  not  to  be  performed  by  another,  we  most  readily  grant. 
And  the  reason  is  most  obvious.  "Let  all  things  be  done  decently 
and  in  order" — Let  all  things  be  done  for  edification.  But  it  pro- 
duces disorder,  it  prevents  edification  to  confound  offices  and  duties. 
This  is  the  reason;  and  as  far  as  we  can  see,  the  only  reason. — 
Where  in  the  New  Testament  is  any  intimation  that  by  one  cere- 
mony of  ordination  the  character  of  Deacon  is  impressed;  by 
another  that  of  priest;  and  then  by  a  different  ceremony  the  epis- 
copal character  was  communicated?  Surely  we  need  not  say  that 
there  was  nothmg  of  all  this  in  the  practice  of  the  Apostles.  As  for. 
difference  of  dignity  and  rank,  therefore,  there  was  no  such  thing. 
It  is  at  war  with  the  whole  genius  of  Christianity,  and  the  spirit 
breathed  by  Jesus  Christ.     Matt,  xx,  25,  26.     "But  Jesus  called 


Review  of  Bishoj)  Ravenscrofl*s  Vindication  and  Defence.    5i 

them  unto  him  and  saitl,  ye  know  that  tlie  princes  of  the  Gentiles 
exercise  dominion  over  them,  and  thoy  that  are  great  exercise  au- 
thority upon  them;  but  it  shall  not  be  so  among  you:  but  whoso- 
ever will  be  great  among  yon,  let  him  be  your  minister;  [^taxoro^ 
servant]  atid  whosoever  will  be  chief  among  you  let  him  be  your 
servant"  [^OP/los-slave.]  "The  presbyters  who  are  among  you," 
says  the  Apostle  Peter,  "I  exhort,  who  am  your  fellow  presbyter." 
The  Apostles  of  Christ,  after  they  had  received  the  Holy  Spirit, 
dreamed  not  of  orders  and  dignities.  Such  trifles  were  too  low  and 
worldly  for  them:  nor  were  they  thought  of,  until  a  secular  spirit 
crept  into  the  church. 

But  as  for  the  particular  point  before  us,  the  true  meaning  of  or- 
dination, a  careful  examination  of  the  New  Testament  affords  the 
surest  means  of  arriving  at  the  truth. 

The  following,  if  our  Greek  concordance  does  not  mislead  us,  are 
the  onl}'  words  of  the  original,  rendered  by  the  English  term  ordain, 
applied  to  ecclesiastical  appointments.  We  quote  in  each  case,  the 
original  word,  that  competent  readers  may  judge  for  themselves: 
and  we  do  sincerely  hope  (such  is  our  feeling  for  the  bishop)  that 
Greek  will  not  be  troublesome  to  him. 

Mark  iii,  14.  "And  he  ordained  [£7to/>7(7e]  twelve,  that  thej^ 
might  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach." 
Now  any  schoolboy,  who  has  read  as  much  Greek  as  is  contained 
in  the  Grcuca  Minora,  knows  that  the  word  here  used  in  the  original, 
is  about  equivalent  to  the  English  verb  to  make;  and  when  applied 
to  official  situations  is  certainly  as  unlimited  as  the  word  to  appoirit. 
If  any  id6a  is  particularly  expressed,  it  is  the  sovereign  authority  of 
Him  who  instituted  the  office. 

The  next  word  rendered  by  ordain  is  found  in  Acts  i,  22.  "Be- 
ginning from  the  baptism  of  John,  unto  that  same  day  that  he  was 
taken  up  from  us,  must  one  be  ordained  [ysvio^L]  to  be  a  witness 
with  us  of  his  resurrection."  Here  the  word  is  as  indefinite  as  the 
English  word  to  be;  and  the  passage  might  with  the  utmost  propriety 
be  rendered  "must  one  be  or  become  a  witness  with  us  of  his  re- 
surrection." 

In  the  next  place,  an  example  is  afforded  by  Acts  xiv,  23.  "And 
when  they  (Paul  and  Barnabas)  had  ordained  [;^ffpoTol^>7Crai'7£$] 
them  elders  in  every  church,  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they 
commended  them  to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  believed."  The  term 
here  in  use,  signifies  literally  to  stretch  forth  the  hand.  In  the  pop- 
ular governments  of  Greece,  this  was  the  mode  in  which  the  citi- 
zens, in  public  elections,  gave  their  votes:*  hence  the  word  came 
to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  our  English  word  to  elect.  The  sense 
afterwards  became  more  general,  and  the  word  was  equivalent  to 
the  English,  appoint;]  no  matter  how  the  appointment  was  made. 
*  See  Xenophon's  Anabasis,  iii.  22.  Kai  OtQ  SoxSL  tdvla,  dvaffi- 

vara  tr^if  jc^i^-     Aviteivov  aTtavleg. 

t  2  Cor.  viii,  19.  'KEipOtOVi^^Stg  GVV£xhy}^Og,  Vfi-CiiV,  who  was  cho- 
sen of  the  churches,  to  travel  with  us.  Philo.  De  Leg.  ad  Calum  £^ftpO- 
"^OVH  tovg  BiaX0(ildwlag  av^pa?,  He  appointed  men  to  carry  the  let- 

ters.  ~ 


o'Z    Hevieiv  nf  Bishop  Jiavcnscrnjrs  Vindicaiiuu  and  Lcjena^ 

Hence,  according  to  the  usage  of  language,  the  words  of  this  passage 
dcterraine  nothing  as  to  the  nature  of  ordination;  they  only  enable 
us  to  say  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  appointed  presbyters  in  the. 
churches. 

Again:  in  1  Timothy  ii,  7,  Paul  snys,  "whereunto  I  am  ordained 
[fVsd);?^]  a  preacher  and  an  apostle."  Now  a  bishop  need  not  be 
told  that  this  is  one  of  the  most  general  words  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage; and  that  it  answers  to  the  English  terms,  to  place,  put,  lay, 
&c.  In  the  sense  of  the  text,  it  is  spoken  of  persons  appointed  or 
designated  for  any  specific  object;  whether  to  do  or  suffer  any 
thing.  Let  the  reader  consult  the  following  passages,  and  if  he  can 
do  so  in  the  original.  John  xv,  16.  1  Tim.  i,  12.  1  Thes.  v,  9. 
1  Peter  ii,  8.  In  the  first  passage,  this  word  is  rendered  ordained: 
In  the  second,  it  is  putting  me  into  the  ministry:  In  the  third,  it  is 
appointed:  and  so  in  the  last.  The  word  employed  in  these  passa- 
ges, affords,  therefore  another  instance  of  a  term  so  undefined,  as 
to  determine  nothing  beyond  mere  appointment  to  office. 

Once  more:  in  Titus  i,  5,  the  Apostle  says,  "For  this  cause  I 
left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are 
wanting,  and  ordain  [Ka7a(j7>iO'>7$]  Elders  in  every  city."  Here 
again  is  a  term  of  very  general  signification,  often  rendered  to  place 
or  set  over,  to  appoint.  In  the  sense  of  the  text  it  means  to  consti- 
tute, or  appoint  to  any  station,  duty  or  office.  It  occurs  in  Matt, 
xxiv,  45,  47 — XXV,  2 1,23.  Lukexii,  14.  Acts  vi,  3,  7— x,  27,  35. 
Heb.  ii,  7 — v,  l,&c.  Let  the  reader  consult  these  passages  also  in 
the  original,  and  mark  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament  in  relation 
to  this  word. 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  are  obliged  to  come  from  the  whole 
view  of  the  case  is  this: — The  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  in 
speaking  of  ordination  use  no  fewer  than^tre  different  words,  all  of 
which  are  as  general,  undefined  terms  as  any  others  in  the  language; 
and  by  no  torture  of  interpretation  can  be  made  to  signify  more  than 
to  appoint,  to  place  in  office. 

The  use  of  this  induction  will  be  apparent  from  the  following 
observations. — The  high  church  notion  respecting  ordination  is, 
that  it  is  a  peculiar  rite,  impressing  a  character;  that  this  cliaracter 
is  essential  to  the  ministerial  office;  that  it  can  be  communicated  in 
no  possible  way,  but  by  a  diocesan  bishop,  who  can  show  his  au- 
thentic credentials,  as  derived  from  the  Apostles;  that  the  very  be- 
ing of  the  church,  and  all  the  warranted  hopes  of  man  depend  on  this 
ordination;  and  that  all  who  are  not  connected  with  a  ministry  thus 
constituted,  have  no  reliance  on  the  covenanted  mercies  of  God. — 
This  is  high  church  doctrine;  but  is  it  scriptural?  Is  it  at  all  credible 
that  the  inspired  writers  would  have  expressed  a  subject  of  such 
unspeakable  importance,  of  such  awful  bearing  in  the  most  general 
and  indefinite  terms  in  the  language?  It  is  not  in  this  way  they 
write,  when  they  speak  of  other  matters,  which  concern  the  life  of 
the  soul.  When  they  treat  of  repentance,  of  faith,  of  charity,  of 
holy  living,  they  speak  in  terms,  plain,  definite,  decisive.  But 
when  they  speak  of  ordination,  sometimes  one  general  term,  and 


iieview  of  Bishop  llavenscrqfi^s  Vindication  and  Defence.    53 

sometimes  another  is  employed  by  them."  Is  it  not  manifest  then, 
that  what  high  churchmen  think  essential,  the  Apostles  regarded  as 
comparatively  unimportant?  We  venture  to  affirm,  that  an  intelli- 
gent reader  of  the  New  Testament,  without  any  system  to  serve, 
on  perusing  all  the  passages  quoted  by  us,  would  not  once  think  of 
ordination,  as  bishop  R.  does.  The  trufh  is  this;  men's  minds  have 
been  filled  with  hierarchical  notions,  and  inventions  of  an  ambitious 
clergy:  the  plain,  unpretending  teachers  of  Christianity  have  been 
metamorphosed  into  priests  of  the  most  high  God,  accredited  agents 
of  heaven,  substitutes  (vicars)  of  Christ; — and  the  scriptures  have 
been  construed  to  suit  these  previous  notions.  Our  readers  may 
rely  on  it  that  high  church  would  never  have  been  found  in  the 
Bible,  had  not  the  prejudices  of  men  placed  it  there  beforehand. 

But  there  are  phrases  in  the  New  Testament,  which  express  what 
is  meant  by  ordination,  as  well  as  single  words  which  designate  the 
act.  A  careful  inquiry  into  the  meaning  of  these  is  demanded. — 
The  whole  subject  is  however  included  in  a  single  question,  What 
is  signified  by  the  laying  on  of  hands  in  ordination?  The  record  of 
the  action  is  made  in  four  or  five  passages  in  the  New  Testament: 
namely,  Acts  vi,  6 — xiii,  3.  1  Tim.  iv,  14,  compared  with  2  Tim. 
i,  6 — and  1  Tim.  v,  22.  If  there  are  any  other  cases  in  which 
imposition  of  hands  is  used  to  signify  ecclesiastical  ordination,  they 
have  escaped  our  notice.  Before  we  proceed  to  a  particular  ex- 
amination of  these,  we  would  observe  that,  in  scripture,  this  rite 
was  observed  on  five  occasions. 

1.  When  a  benediction  was  pronounced.  2.  When  the  special 
benediction  of  pardon  was  pronounced.  3.  When  miraculous  gifts 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  bestowed.  4,  When  miraculous  cures 
•were  performed.  5.  When  persons  were  inaugurated,  or  inducted 
into  office.  The  Apostles  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  sometimes 
intended  one  of  these  things,  and  sometimes  the  other.  But  what: 
was  the  particular  import  of  the  right  in  ordination?  We  shall  best 
answer  by  looking  at  its  origin.  That  it  was  a  common  right  in 
the  Jewish  synagogue,  and  of  course  familiar  to  all  Jewish  worship- 
ers, is  well  known.  In  Num.  xxvii,  15 — 23,  we  find  a  case  which 
probably  gave  rise  to  the  custom.  God  especially  designates 
Joshua  as  the  successor  of  Moses.  He  is  selected,  because  "</ie 
Spirit  is  in  him.''''  And  Moses  is  commanded  "to  lay  his  hand  upon 
him,  and  set  him  before  Eleazar  the  priest,  and  all  the  congrega- 
tion, and  give  him  a  charge  in  their  sight." — "And  Moses  did  as 
the  Lord  commanded,  and  he  took  Joshua  and  set  him  before 
Eleazar  the  priest,  and  before  all  the  congregation,  and  he  laid  his 
hands  on  him  and  gave  him  a  charge."  Now  how  is  it  possible 
for  any  one  not  to  sec  that  imposition  of  hands  here  is  for  designa- 
tion of  the  person  to  ojicc?  The  appointment  had  been  made  before, 
and  the  reason  of  it  assigned;  because  the  Spirit  urns  in  Joshua. — 
After  this  we  find  the  prevalence  of  this  custom  down  to  the  days  of 
the  Apostles. 

With  these  observations  before  us,  let  us  turn  to  the  first  case 
cited.  Acts  vi,  6.  It  is  that  of  the  appointment  of  Deacons:  "whom 
they  set  before  the  Apostles;  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  Jai'' 


54   Review  of  Bishop  llavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defoicf. 

tlieir  hands  on  them." — A  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances 
will  show  beyond  a  doubt,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  rite  as  here 
stated,  but  an  induction  into  offices  to  which  the  persons  mentioned 
had  been  elected.  If  any  one  affirms  that  there  is  something  else, 
we  would  fain  know  what  it  is.  These  men  had,  before  their  elec- 
tion, received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  is  evident  from  the  ex- 
press words  of  the  saci'ed  writer.  The  Apostles  did  not  therefore 
lay  on  their  hands,  to  bestow  that  gift.  And  if  election  by  the  people 
was  any  thing  more  than  an  unmeaning  ceremony, it  gave  to  these  dea- 
cons the  right,  power  or  authority — the  reader  may  call  it  what  he 
will — to  distribute  the  alms  of  the  church.  The  deacons,  then,  did 
not  receive  from  the  Apostles  that  which  the  vote  of  the  people  had 
already  given.  The  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  Apostles  was  just 
what  we  have  stated,  an  induction  into  office — an  investiture.  It  is 
needless  to  reason  on  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  adopting  some 
decent  ceremony  to  be  observed  on  such  occasions;  and  we  need 
not  stop  to  remark  on  the  advantage  of  adopting  one  familiar  to  the 
people. 

The  second  case,  Acts  xiii,  3,  is  that  of  Barnabas  and  Saul,  who 
were  sent  out  on  a  special  mission  to  the  Gentiles.  The  following 
verse.s  clearly  state  the  matter — "Now  there  were  in  the  church 
that  was  at  Antioch,  certain  prophets  and  teachers,  as  Barnabas, 
and  Simeon  that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of  Cyrene,  and  Ma- 
naen  which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the  Tetrarch,  and 
Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost 
said,  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have 
called  them.  And  when  they  had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their 
hands  071  them,  they  sent  them  away.  Now  here  was  a  case  of  ordi- 
nation to  the  ministry,  or  there  was  not.  If  there  was,  it  is  a  case 
fatal  to  the  cause  of  prelacy:  for  then  prophets  and  elders  ordained 
an  Apostle;  that  is,  they  ordained  to  an  office  higher  than  that  held 
by  themselves.  And  so  presbyters  might  ordain  a  diocesan  bishop, 
if  they  should  happen  to  wish  for  one  [Quod  Deus  avertat!]  But 
again:  if  here  was  an  ordination,  then  what  becomes  of  the  notion 
that  in  ordination  something  is  communicated;  or  as  bishop  R.  and 
the  Catholics  say  a  character  is  impressed?  Could  these  prophets 
and  elders  communicate  what  they  had  not? — Could  they  impress 
the  character  of  Apostolical  authority?  This  will  not  be  pretended. 
But  if  there  was  no  ordination  here,  in  the  ecclesitistical  sense,  then 
imposition  of  hands  was  nothing  more  than  designation,  after  the 
customary  form,  to  a  particular  service.  This  appears  to  us  to  be 
the  just  view  of  the  subject;  for  both  Barnabas  and  Saul  had,  for 
some  years,  been  employed  in  the  ministry;  and  surely  they  did 
not  enter  on  this  service,  without  having  been  duly  authorized. — 
Besides;  it  is  well  known  that,  in  ancient  times,  when  particular 
prayer  was  offered  for  any  one,  it  was  customary,  for  greater 
impressiveness,  to  lay  hands  on  his  head.  And  nothing  is  more 
common  among  truly  pious  persons  of  every  age,  than  united  prayer 
for  one  who  is  about  to  engage  in  any  arduous  and  important  enter- 
prise. Such  appears  to  have  been  the  case  in  the  instance  now 
under  consideration.  But  let  every  one  judge  for  himself.  If 
ho^vever.  our  opinion  is  correct,  it  shows  that  no  mvsterv  was  made 


llevieto  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt- s  Vindication  and  Defence.    63 

of  this  laying  on  of  hands:  one  while  it  was  designation  to  office, 
and  then  designation  to  particular  service  in  an  office. 

In  the  next  place,  pursuing  our  inquiry,  we  come  to  1  Tim.  iv, 
1 4,  compared  with  2  Tim.  i,  6.  "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee, 
which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery."  "Stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands."  On  the  first  of  these  passages  we  re- 
mark, that  the  word  rendered  gift  {j(agiGflOi)  means  any  thing  freely 
bestowed  ofwhat  kind  soever  it  may  be.  J'he  phrase  rendered  {?i  i^ee, 
{ev  ClOl)  is  a  periphrasis  for  your,  according  to  a  well  known  usage 
of  the  Greek  language,  which  employs  a  substantive  pronoun,  with 
this  preposition  before  it  for  an  adjective:  ')(iJ.^lO^  £V  (Soi,  then 
means  ijour  gift,  i.  e.  the  gift  which  you  have  received.  By  look- 
ing at  the  context,  it  is  evident  that  by  this  gift,  the  Apostle  designates 
the  office  of  a  christian  minister,  or  teacher.  The  phrase  by  pro- 
phecy is  universally  understood  to  mean  that  prophetical  men  had 
foretold  Timothy's  entrance  into  the  ministry,  and  probably  his  dis- 
tinguished eminence.  "With  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
byiery,^^  expresses  the  manner  in  which  Timothy  was  inducted  into 
this  office.  That  the  preposition  (tela  is  thus  employed  might  easily 
be  shown  by  decisive  exam<ples;  and  if  this  Review  should  ever  be 
re-published  in  a  separate  form  with  notes  and  comments,  we  will 
show  it.  The  whole  amount  of  the  passage,  then,  is  an  exhortation 
to  Timothy  to  discharge  faithfully  and  zealously  the  duties  of  the 
ministerial  office,  into  which  he  had  been  inducted  by  the  Presby- 
tery. [Q,uere — What  would  bishop  R.  give  if  this  word  Presbyterv 
could  be  expunged  fairly  and  honestly  from  the  text,  and  bishop  be 
inserted  in  its  place?]  A  comparison  of  the  passage  above  with 
that  before  quoted,  2  Tim.  i,  6,  warrants  the  belief  that  when  Tim- 
othy was  ordained,  Paul  was  moderator  (chairman,  or  president,  as 
some  would  say)  of  the  Presbytery  which  ordained  him,  and  in  virtue 
of  his  apostolical  powers,  communicated  the  extraordinary  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  here  called  the  gift  of  God.  But  that  ordination 
communicated  any  thing  mysterious,  or  expressed  any  transmission 
of  power  or  authority  from  Jesus  Christ  through  the  ordaining  min- 
ister is  nowhere  in  the  remotest  degree  intimated.  The  other  pas- 
sage referred  to,  1  Tim.  v,  22.  "Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man," 
determines  nothing  as  to  the  particular  inquiry  now  before  us.  We 
do  therefore  maintain  that  according  to  scripture,  ordination  is  noth- 
ing more  than  induction  into  an  otBce  established  by  Jesus  Christ  as 
Head  of  the  Church. 

If  it  be  asked,  why  then  do  we  hold  ordination  to  be  necessary; 
and  why  is  it  ordinarily  to  be  performed  by  persons  already  invest- 
ed with  the  ministerial  office? — We  answer, 

1.  Not  because  they  in  a  mysterious  manner  convey  a  "charac- 
ter of  authority"  which  has  been  transmitted  through  a  long  line  of 
ecclesiastics  from  the  apostles.     But, 

2.  Because  it  is  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ  that,  in  his  churcb, 
every  thing  should  be  done  decently  and  in  order;  that  the  teachers 
of  religion  should  be  as  well  qualified  as  possible  for  discharging  the 
duties  of  their  office;  and  that  such  measures  should  he  adopted  for 


0(5    lleviexu  of  Bishop  liavenscroft's  Vindication  and  TJej'ence, 

ensuring  this  great  object  as  will  give  confidence  to  the  people  that 
those  who  come  to  them  as  ministers  of  religion,  are  sound  and  ca- 
pable teachers  of  the  truth.  These  are  plain,  intelligible  reasons, 
which  show  the  wisdom  of  the  appointment.  For  it  is  obvious  to 
every  man  of  common  sense,  that  they  who  have  themselves  been 
trained,  and  who  have  had  experience  in  the  work  of  the  ministry 
are  the  best  judges  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates  for  the  sacred 
office.  This  plain  rule  was  adopted  in  the  organization  of  the  church. 
It  is  the  only  rule  sustained  either  by  reason  or  scripture.  The 
opinion  that  by  the  hands  of  man  a  character  is  transmitted  from  one 
generation  to  another,  was  cherished  by  ambitious  and  worldly- 
minded  ecclesiastics  to  increase  their  power;  it  was  readily  receiv- 
ed by  the  superstitious  credulity  of  former  times;  and  has  done  infi- 
nite mischief  to  the  church.  As  for  authority  to  teach  Christ's  doc- 
trine, children  in  knowledge  ought  to  know  that  it  is  not  derived 
from  man.  We  receive  it  from  Jesus  Christ,  through  his  revealed 
truth.  He  who  has  received  the  gospel  and  felt  its  power;  has 
been  trained  for  the  ministry,  and  inducted  into  the  office  in  a  way 
approved  by  the  church  and  conformed  to  the  general  principles 
laid  down  in  scripture,  has  all  the  authority  which  man  can  have. 
He  preaches  Christ's  doctrine,  administers  Christ''s  sacraments,  and 
is  therefore  acknowledged  as  a  minister  of  C/irisJ.  But  let  us  sup- 
pose that  a  man  who  has  been  ordained  by  the  archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, does  not  preach  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  but  another  gospeI/, 
is  he  a  true  minister?  Let  us  suppose  that  he  is  a  Socinian — such 
there  are  in  the  English  church — and  that,  although  he  administers 
the  sacraments  according  to  the  forms  of  that  church,  he  teaches  his 
flock  to  understand  and  receive  them  in  the  Socinian  sense: — for 
instance,  although  he  administers  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  yet  he  understands,  and  teachei  others  to  un- 
derstand that  by  these  words  are  meant  "the  supreme  God,  the  man 
.Tesus,  and  a  divine  influence,"  does  he  because  he  was  episcopally 
ordained  administer,  and  does  the  subject  of  baptism  receive  a  true 
sacrament?  On  the  other  hand,  when  a  presbyterian  minister  ad- 
ministers baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  as 
one  living  and  true  God,  does  he  administer  no  true  sacrament  be- 
cause he  was  not  episcopally  ordained?  Where  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  any  thing  to  warrant  such  opinions  as  these?  In  the  rule 
given  us  by  our  blessed  Saviour,  form  is  nothing:  truth  is  every 
thing:  it  is  by  the  truth  we  are  sanctified;  by  the  truth  we  are 
made  free;  by  the  word  of  God,  we  are  begotten  to  a  lively  hope. 

We  are  grieved  and  ashamed  that  the  pernicious  superstitions  of 
the  dark  ages  should  be  revived  and  propagated  among  us,  as  truths 
connected  with  the  very  being  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and  the 
best  hopes  of  man  for  eternity.  With  many,  the  opinions  which  we 
combat  are  mere  prejudices  entertained  without  any  evil  intention; 
but  they  are  deeply  to  be  deplored,  because  they  narrow  the  views, 
and  limit  the  exercise  of  christian  affection;  they  prevent  co-oper- 
ation in  plans  of  christian  benevolence,  and  impede  the  progress  of 
true  religion. 

In  reply  to  all  this,  bishop  R.  may  say  that  he  holds  the  necessity 
of  "  nnitv  of  faith"  as  well  as  of  "  order."     He  does  indeed  lay 


iteview  of  Bishop  ltaien6croJt''s  i  Indicaiion  and  JJej'encc.     ^i 

down  this  position  in  one  place  in  his  book;  but  in  another,  he  un= 
equivocally  prefers  the  ungodly,  fox-hunting  parish  priest,  to  the 
most  learned  and  pious  dissenting  minister.  What  the  faith  of  an 
ringodly,  unconverted  man  is,  which  unites  him  with  the  church, 
and  makes  him  a  link  in  the  chain  which  preserves  the  unity  of  the 
church,  we  leave  to  bishop  R.  to  determine.  Certainly  there  can 
be  no  reliance  on  such  a  man  for  true  doctrine.  He  will  not  preach 
the  pure  gospel  of  Christ.  Bishop  R.  must  here  resort  to  his 
book  of  common  prayer,  or  his  assurance,  for  unity  of  faith  is  gone. 
And  if  this  is  his  only  resource,  has  he  not  been  rather  rash,  in  his 
disclaimer  on  page  10?  He  there  declaims  somewhat  furiously 
about  the  Reviewer's  assertion,  that  the  bishop  wished  to  send  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  witli  the  Bible.  Yet  he  takes  good  care 
to  deny  nothing  but  the  authority  of  the  assertion.  He  will  not 
deny  the  wish.  But  of  this  more  perhaps  hereafter.  We  here 
desire  our  readers  distinctly  to  understand  that  our  views  of  ordin- 
ation have  not  been  adopted  because  we  feel  any  greater  uncertainty 
as  to  the  succession  of  presbyters  than  of  bishops.  We  believe, 
too,  without  the  least  shadow  of  a  doubt,  that  Calvin  and  Knox 
had  just  as  much  power  to  impress  a  character  as  Cranmer  or  Rid- 
ley. Our  opinions  are  the  result  of  an  honest  inquiry  into  the 
constitution  of  the  church  of  Christ,  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  New 
Testament.  There  every  thing  is  commended  by  the  plain  and 
obvious  reason  of  the  case.  Nothing  is  mystical;  nothing  super- 
stitious. The  christian  religion  is  a  system  of  truth,  which  pro- 
duces its  whole  effect  by  its  being  known,  and  received  in  the  lore 
of  it.  For  this  reason,  and  to  accomplish  this  important  purpose, 
teachers  of  this  religion  are  employed.  There  is  no  more  mystery 
in  the  office,  than  in  that  of  any  other  teacher.  He  who  best  un- 
derstands the  religion,  most  deeply  feels  its  power,  and  has  the 
greatest  zeal  for  its  propagation,  is  the  best  instructor.  This  is 
precisely  the  case  in  all  ordinary  affairs.  Had  the  matter  always 
been  put  on  this  ground,  infinite  abuse  would  have  been  prevented, 
and  the  church  had  been  spared  incalculable  evil:  numerous  and 
bitter  prejudices  would  have  found  no  place;  and  that  suspicion  of 
clergymen,  and  that  ho-^tility  which  rises  in  man}'^  minds  so  strongly 
against  them,  would  appear  without  the  shadow  of  a  foundation. 
Many  difficulties  which  have  perplexed  inquirers;  many  objections 
urged  by  infidels  would  never  once  have  occurred  to  the  mind. 

As  an  illustration  of  this  last  remark,  we  would  ask,  who  can 
perceive  any  difference  in  the  ministrations  of  religious  teachers 
arising  from  a  difference M  their  ordination  ?  What  visible  differ- 
ence in  the  effect  of  theiX labours?,  A  pious,  zealous  episcopalian 
preaches  the  gospel:  sinners  are  converted;  the  fiithful  are  edified; 
the  afllicted  are  comforted.  A  presbyteriiui  preaches  the  same 
truths;  and  the  same  effects  follow.  No  m<in  in  the  world  can 
point  out  the  smallest  difference  between  the  penitence,  the  faith, 
the  love,  the  hope,  the  comfort  produced  by  the  instrumentality  of 
these  different  preachers.  The  character  of  holiness  formed  by 
the  truth  in  each  case  is,  as  far  as  it  goes,  precisely  the  same  char- 
acter. Yet  bishop  R.  and  his  brethren  of  the  high  church  would 
wish  us  to  believe  that  there  is  a  most  material  difference  in  the?e 


j8     Reviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

two  cases,  arising  solely  from  this  fact,  that  one  preacher  was  or- 
dained by  a  diocesan  bishop,  and  the  other  by  a  presbytery.  The 
converts  made  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Presbyterian,  believe 
the  doctrine,  because  it  is  Christ's  doctrine;  rely  on  the  promises, 
because  they  were  made  by  Christ;  receive  the  sacraments  because 
they  were  instituted  by  Christ;  cherish  the  hope  of  salvation,  be- 
cause it  is  warranted  by  the  truth  which  Christ  has  revealed,  and 
the  work  which  Christ  has  wrought  by  his  spirit;  yet  this  hope  is 
unscriptural,  because,  forsooth,  his  religious  teacher  has  not  re- 
ceived a  character  of  authority  transmitted  through  bishops  and 
popes  for  1800  years.  Whereas  the  Episcopalian,  who  exercises 
the  same  repentance,  the  same  faith,  the  same  love,  and  no  more; 
who  receives  the  sacraments  as  signs  and  seals  of  the  same  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  cherishes  precisely  the  same  hope  of  salvation, 
has  the  warrant  of  heaven  for  all,  because  his  religious  instructor 
has  the  character  of  authority!  Pretensions  like  these  stumble  be- 
lief— create  offence  — awaken  suspicion.  Men  who  have  no  prelati- 
cal  prejudices  to  warp  their  minds,  look  only  at  the  ability  of  the 
teacher,  and  the  doctrine  taught  by  him.  If  these  are  approved, 
it  does  not  seem  to  matter  a  straw  whether  the  teacher  had  the 
hands  of  one  man,  or  of  a  presbytery  laid  on  his  head.  And  if  the 
Presbyterian  succeeds  in  persuading  his  countrymen,  to  be  good 
citizens,  good  husbands,  fothers,  masters,  neighbours;  to  be  kind, 
benevolent,  temperate,  honest,  industrious;  to  fear  God,  and  work 
righteousness,  the  plain,  practical  man  of  the  world,  who  judges 
of  religion  by  its  fruits,  is  perfectly  amazed,  when  he  hears  the 
bishops  of  the  church  declaring  that  all  this  piety,  this  benevolence, 
this  pure  morality  goes  for  nothing,  because,  truly,  these  people 
have  not  been  baptized  by  a  duly  authorized  minister,  have  not  re- 
ceived the  Lord's  supper  from  a  man,  on  whose  head  a  bishop  has 
laid  his  hands!  Now,  people  generally  will  not  take  the  trouble  to 
search  the  scriptures,  and  see  whether  these  things  are  so.  For 
the  most  part,  they  take  it  for  granted  that  surely  the  bishop  must 
know.  I'hey  assume  that  Christianity  is  really  such  a  religion  as 
its  titled  advocates  represent;  that  it  does  suspend  man's  hopes  of 
?alvation  on  these  comparatively  trivial  circumstances;  and  the  in- 
ference is,  that  it  is  a  superstition  unworthy  of  a  wise  man's  recep- 
tion. It  is  thought  incredible  that  God  should  connect  eternal  life 
with  things  of  so  small  importance.  It  is  suspected  that  clergymen 
put  in  claims  to  some  mysteriously  sacred  and  elevated  character,  to 
raise  themselves  aliove  other  people;  and  clothe  themselves  with 
spiritual  power,  for  the  sake  of  ensul-ing  implicit  submission. 
There  is  no  telling  the  extent  of  .^  nitschief  thus  wrought  by 
high  church  pretensions.  ^ 

But  let  the  people  know,  that  according  to  the  scriptures,  the 
truth  of  God  is  not  thus  limited  in  its  saving  efficacy:  that  a  sinner 
does  not  derive  his  warrant  to  believe  that  truth,  and  to  rely  on 
the  promises  of  God  in  Christ  from  a  fellow  worm.  Let  them 
know  that  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  gospel  to  warrant  these  ex- 
travagant assumptions.  And  as  they  love  their  souls,  let  them  not 
in  a  spirit  of  indolence,  rely  on  any  assurance,  that  man  can  give 
them,  of  the  fovour  of  God,  and  the  happiness  of  heaven.     Bishop 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft' s  Vindication  and  Defence.^    59 

R.  is  angry  with  us, — [a  very  unepiscopal  passion  this,  Bishop!]— 
because  we  deny  all  these  pretensions;  and  warn  the  i)eople  against 
them.  As  for  ourselves,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  partake  of  his 
emotion.  There  is  something  so  mock  heroic  in  all  this  blustering 
dignity,  this  pomp  and  parade,  that  our  greatest  difficulty  is  to  re- 
frain from  holding  up  the  whole  thing  to  ridicule.  The  serious- 
ness of  the  general  subject,  and  reflection  on  the  mischief  done  by 
such  arrogant  claims,  often  suddenly  change  our  disposition  to 
latighler  into  sorrow  and  mourning.  It  shall  be  for  a  lamentation 
that  ministers  of  religion,  in  this  enlightened  age,  are  running  back 
into  the  darkness  of  the  12th  century;  and  that  any  of  our  coun- 
trymen allow  prejudice  so  to  sway  their  minds,  that  they  admit  the 
claims  of  men,  who  set  up  to  be  accredited  agents  of  heaven^  and 
substitutes  of  Jesus  Christ. 

That  these  are  the  claims  of  bishop  R.  and  his  high  churchmen, 
is  abundantly  evident  from  every  part  of  his  book.  The  following 
may  serve  as  a  specimen. 

"  What  Presbyterian  or  other'dissenter,  will  risk  the  purchase  of  property 
from  a  distant  owner,  by  power  of  attorney,  upon  the  mere  assertion  of  the 
agent  that  he  is  empowered  to  convey  the  title  ?  Know  you  of  an)',  who 
would  not  require  to  see  the  power  of  attorney — that  it  was  in  due  form  of 
law,  and  such  as  would  bind  the  principal,  before  he  paid  tlie  price,  or  even 
became  bound  for  it?  And  know  you  not  of  thousands,  who  bargain  for  the 
rich  inheritance  of  the  gospel  for  themselves  and  their  families,  without  the 
slightest  security,  beyond  the  mere  say  so  of  the  agent  ?  Alas,  how  very 
true  are  our  Saviour's  words  "  that  the  children  of  this  world,  are  in  their 
generation,  wiser  than  the  children  of  light."  Episcopalians  present  these 
doctrines  to  their  hearers,  in  the  full  persuasion,  that  the  church,  the  minis- 
try and  the  sacraments,  are  as  distinctly  and  truly  appointments  of  God,  in 
order  to  the  salvation  of  sinners,  as  the  faith  of  the  gospel ;  and  that  onU' 
as  these  are  united  in  the  profession  of  religion,  can  the  hope  thereby  given 
to  man,  be  worthy  of  the  name  of  assurance.  Episcopalians  consider  the 
grace  and  mercy  of  the  gospel,  as  matters  of  strict  covenant  stipulation  ;  as 
bound  up  with  the  authority  to  dispense  them,  as  iiiseparable  from  that  au- 
thority ;  and  only  by  virtue  of  that  authority  (with  reverence  be  it  spoken) 
pledging  the  glorious  source  of  all  mercy  and  grace  to  his  creatures.  But 
they  presume  not  to  pass  beyond  their  written  warrant,  either  to  extend  or 
to  circumscribe  the  mercy  of  God  ;  they  know  what  is  promised,  and  on 
what  conditions,  and  of  that  only  do  they  venture  to  speak.  Those  persons 
who  profess  to  be  acquainted  with  the  secret  decrees  of  Almighty  God,  may 
also  be  acquainted  with  the  extent  and  the  rule  of  liis  uncovcnanted  mercy, 
and  prefer  it  to  that  which  is  promised ;  but  Episcopalians  dare  not  thus 
speculate  on  eternity — and  they  feel  themselves  well  supported  in  present- 
ing and  pressing  this  distinction  upon  their  hearers,  by  the  whole  analogy 
of  scripture." — pp.  31,  32. 

And  here,  since  the  bishop  J)uts  the  matter  on  this  ground,  we 
demand  that  he  shows  us  his  power  of  attorney  duly  authenticated. 
He  talks  much  of  pretense  titles:  let  him  give  us,  and  the  good 
people  of  the  country  (who  are  called  on  to  submit  to  the  spiritual 
authority  of  himself  and  his  brethren)  let  him  give  us  all,  indisput- 
able evidence  that  he  has  received  authority  to  assure  us  of  salva- 
tion, when  we  receive  the  sacraments  at  his  hands.  Nothing  short 
of  literal  compliance  will  satisfy  us,  or  ought  to  satisfy  the  people. 
As  our  warranted  hopes  of  salvation  depend  on  our  receiving  the 
sacraments  from  the  accredited  agents  of  heaven,  we  have  a  right 
to  require  him  to  produce  his  credentials  signed  and  sealed,  so  as 
8 


60    Sevicw  uf  Bishop  Eavenscrqft's  Vindication  and  Defence* 

to  remove  all  possibility  of  doubt.  Let  him  un(lerstantlj  too,  how- 
far  this  demand  goes.     We  will  state  it  distinctly, 

1.  An  unbaptized  person  is  not  in  the  church:  but,  none  but  true 
ministers  have  a  right  to  baptize. — The  bishop  then  must  show 
that  he  received  legitimate  baptism;  otherwise  he  is  out  of  the 
church.  But  to  prove  this,  he  must  show  that  the  man  who  bap- 
tized him,  received  legitimate  baptism;  for  a  man  out  of  the  church 
cannot  bring  another  in,  otherwise  Lot  or  Melchizedeck  might  have 
administered  circumcision,  which  the  bishop  affirms  they  could  not 
do.  And  thus  must  he  go  back  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  proving 
in  every  case  the  legitimate  baptism  of  every  minister  in  the  line. 
But  we  are  right  sure  the  bishop,  with  all  his  aids,  cannot  do  this. 
For  in  the  first  place,  it  is  well  known  that  during  the  dark  ages  of 
popery,  not  only  were  duly  qualified  priests  permitted  to  baptize, 
but  even  laymen,  and  in  some  cases  a  very  convenient  and  useful 
class  of  old  women.  And  what  is  equally  bad,  among  the  changes 
which  have  taken  place  in  the  church,  there  is  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  bishops  and  archbishops  too,  were  baptized  by  dissenters. 
This  was  unquestionably  the  case  wilh  that  most  admirable  man 
archbishop  Leighton,  with  archbishop  Seeker,  wh";se  works  no 
man  can  read  without  both  pleasure  and  profit,  and  with  Tillotson, 
the  glory  of  the  church  of  England.  These  instances  occur  at  the 
moment;  research  would  probably  furnish  many  more. 

2.  However  legitimate  a  man's  baptism,  if  he  has  not  been  epis- 
copally  ordained,  he  has  no  right  to  administer  the  ordinances;  and 

^  can  give  no  assurance  of  salvation.  The  bishop  then  must  embrace 
in  his  proof,  evidence  that  every  man  in  the  line  between  him  and 
St.  Peter,  vvas  not  only  baptized  in  due  form,  but  so  ordained  that 
there  can  be  no  flaw  in  the  character  of  authority  impressed  on  him. 
But  if  he  is  as  well  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  English  church 
as  he  ought  to  be,  he  will  not  dare  to  deny  that  there  have  been 
ministers  in  that  church,  who  were  ordained  by  Presbyteries. 

3.  As  none  but  a  bishop,  according  to  our  author,  can  impress 
the  character  of  authority,  the  right  reverend  Doctor  must  go  back 
from  himself  to  the  Apostles,  and  give  not  a  list  made  up  according 
to  probable  conjecture — this  cannot  satisfy  us  where  our  hopes  for 
eternity  are  concerned — but  unequivocal  evidence  in  every  case, 
that  each  bishop  in  the  line,  was  duly  baptized,  duly  confirmed,  diily 
ordained  deacon,  dtdy  ordained  priest,  duly  consecrated  bishop. 
The  break  of  a  single  link  destroys  the  whole  of  this  long  chain. 
Assumption  won't  do — We  cannot  admit  conjectures  and  probabili- 
ties. Our  souls  are  at  stake.  Our  hopes  of  heaven  depend  on  our 
knowing  the  truth.  Do  not  tell  us,  then,  that  the  thing  can  easily 
be  done — but  do  it. 

Really  the  bishop  must  summon  to  his  aid  more  lawyers  and  bel- 
ter historians,  than  have  yet  given  him  assistance,  or  we  and  the 
good  people  of  North  Carolina,  will  have  to  wait  long  before 
our  doubts  are  removed.  Many  we  fear  will  die,  before  the  title 
papers  can  be  made  out. 

No  reader  of  bishop  R's.  book  can  say  that  we  have  required 
more  than  his  principles,  fairly  interpreted,  render  necessary. 
We  then  repeat  our  demand — Let  us  see;  let  the  world  see  the  bish- 


Beview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence,     6t 

op^s  poxeer  of  attorney  fully  authenticated.  If  he  will  not  comply  with 
this  demand;  if  neither  charity  to  us,  nor  a  regard  to  his  own  con- 
sistency can  bring  out  the  document,  let  him  say  no  more  about  pre- 
ie7ice  titles.  But  let  the  plain  man  of  common  sense,  look  at  the 
New  Testament,  and  say,  do  our  hopes  of  heaven  depend  on  a  broken 
reed  like  this? 

Every  intelligent  reader  has  perceived  that  a  material  point  of 
difference  between  bishop  R.  and  us,  regards  the  purpose  and 
powers  of  the  ministry  of  the  gospel.  Well  inf^ormed  christians  of 
every  denomination  agree  that  the  church  is  the  same  in  all  ages — ■ 
that  it  is  07ie — that  it  is  the  will  of  Christ,  the  Head,  that  there 
should  be  teachers  in  this  church — and  that  it  is  their  appropriate 
business  to  administer  the  sacraments,  as  signs  and  seals  of  the  cov- 
enant of  grace.  But  bishop  R.  errs  most  grievously  in  supposing 
that  the  power  and  authority  of  the  standing  and  perpetual  officers 
of  the  church,  are  the  same,  with  the  power  and  authority  of  the 
extraordinary  officers,  appointed  for  special  and  extraordinary  pur- 
poses. It  did  not  suit  the  wise  designs  of  our  Lord  to  commit  his 
doctrine  to  writing.  He  made  his  revelation  gradually,  as  men 
were  able  to  bear  it.  Until  this  religion  was  written  in  a  book  for 
the  instruction  of  all,  it  was  indispensably  necessary  that  inspired 
men  should  authoritativel}'  declare  the  will  of  Christ,  or,  to  use  the 
bishop's  language,  should  be  substitutes  of  Christ  on  earth.  This 
was  the  case  with  the  apostles.  But  when  they  were  removedj 
their  writings  were  put  in  their  place.  The  New  Testament  suc- 
ceeded to  the  apostolic  administration.  It  contains  the  doctrine  of 
Christ.  It  possesses  the  power,  lodged  no  where  else,  of  authori- 
tatively declaring  the  will  of  Christ,  and  determining  precisely  what 
men  must  believe  and  do,  that  they  may  be  saved.  Does  any  pro- 
testant  Bishop  dare  deny  this?  However  he  may  boast  of  apostolic 
succession,  does  he  presume  to  put  himself  in  the  place  of  an  apos- 
tle, and  by  his  authority  bind  the  consciences  of  men?  Is  he  not 
obliged  to  resort  to  the  word  of  God  for  this  purpose?  If,  in  igno- 
rance o{  sacred  Hcrmeneutics, — We  beg  pardon,  the  bishop  does  not 
like  this  word — if  in  ignorance  of  the  true  method  of  expounding 
scripture — a  case  that  has  often  occurred — he  should  mistake  the 
meaning  of  God's  word,  does  his  episcopal  authority  bind  men  to 
receive  his  mistake  as  divine  truth?  And  if  an  humble  Presbyteri- 
an or  Congregationalist  states,  in  his  exposition,  the  precise  mean- 
ing of  the  sacred  writer,  the  very  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  there 
no  authority  in  this  statement?  Let  the  bishop  weigh  these  ques- 
tions well.  The  apostles,  as  men  commissioned  by  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  inspired  with  his  Spirit,  so  as  to  be  able  infallibly  to  declare  his 
will,  could  in  strict  propriety  of  speech  say  "We  are  ambassadors 
for  Christ,"  &;c.  ;  we  take  the  place  of  Christ,  and  for  him  declare 
the  truth  of  God.  The  apostles  delivered  the  terms  dictated  by 
their  master,  committed  them  to  writing,  and  published  them  to  the 
world:  so  that  now  they  are  equally  accessible  to  all.  The  case  of 
ordinary  ministers  of  the  gospel  is  very  different.  They  bring  no 
new  terms:  they  reveal  no  truths  unknown  before:  they  make  no 
new  discoveries  in  religion.  But  their  simple  business  as  preach- 
ers iSj  to  assist  their  fello^v  men  in  understanding  the  terms  of  gal  v?.- 


C:i     Review  of  Bishop  RavenscroJV s  Vindicatinn  and  Defence. 


(ion,  and  to  persuade  all  men  to  embrace  them  as  they  are  revealed 
in  the  gospel. — The  whole  authority  is  lodged  in  the  gospel  as  a  reve- 
lation of  the  xsaillofGod;  and  not  an  atom  of  it  in  man.  The  case  is 
the  same  in  regard  to  the  sacraments.  The  observance  of  them  is 
binding  because  they  were  instituted  by  Christ.  They  are  effica- 
cious, because  they  convey  to  the  mind  of  the  believer,  under  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  a  very  impressive  manner,  the 
truths  of  Christ's  religion.  They  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  receiv- 
er, not  because  they  are  administered  by  man,  but  because  they  are 
God's  seals,  annexed  by  him  to  his  own  covenant.  Any  other  view 
of  this  subject  is  mystical;  is  popish;  nourishes  superstition;  and 
serves  eflectually  to  increase  undue  clerical  power.  With  an  in- 
quiring mind  too,  the  high  church  notions  nmst  produce  serious 
doubts,  and  very  troul)lesome  anxieties.  For  unless  the  preacher 
always  carries  with  him  his  duly  authenticated  po-wer  of  attorney, 
there  will  in  some  case  or  other  arise  a  question  in  the  mind  of  the 
receiver,  whether  the  administrator  bears  the  character  of  authori- 
ty in  unbroken  succession  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  dif- 
ference between  the  bishop  and  his  reviewer,  in  regard  to  this  whole 
matter,  may  be  thus  stated  in  contrast. 


Reviewer.  Having  been  appointed 
a  teacher  in  the  church  of  Christ,  I 
do  declare  unto  you  that  such  and 
such  ai'e  the  doctrines  of  Christ  as 
revealed  in  the  Bible.  Beheve  them, 
720^  because  of  my  ~^'ord,  but  because 
they  are  the  doctriue  of  Christ.  It  is 
this  which  gives  them  their  whole 
authority  to  bind  your  consciences, 
and  regulate  your  faith.  The  author- 
ity I  repeat  is  not  in  the  man  but  in 
the  word.  I  speak  as  unto  wise  men 
— Search  the  scriptures,  and  judge 
ye,  what  I  say. 

Jieviewer.  As  a  teacher  of  Christ's 
religion,  I  remind  you  that  he  has  es- 
tablished  a  church  on  earth,  which 
you  are  bound  to  enter,  that  you  may 
partake  of  all  the  helps  and  encour- 
agements which  he  has  provided  for 
his  people.  And  having  first  given 
yourself  to  the  Lord,  you  must  then 
give  yourself  and  yours  unto  us,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  God. 


Revietoer,  As  a  minister  of  the 
gospel  I  teach  that  Jesus  Christ  ap- 
pointed  the  sacraments  as  signs,  to 
represent  the  great  truths  of  his  re- 
ligion ;  and  as  seals,  by  which  he 
gives  assurance  of  liis  grace  and  mer- 
cy. You  are  to  receive  these  as 
Chrisi'a  sacraments ;  as  signs  of  his 
truth  and  ^eah  of  his  favour  ;  and  in 


Bishop.  I  the  authorized  agent  of 
heaven,  the  substitute  for  the  person 
of  Christ  on  earth,  do  declai-e  that 
the  will  of  God  is  so  and  so;  and  by 
the  authority  vested  in  me  I  pledge 
the  God  of  truth  to  fulfil  these  prom- 
ises of  his  word.  This  is  a  peculiar 
power  vested  in  me,  and  in  all  my 
brethren,  with  which  no  other  men 
on  the  earth  are  clothed.  If  there- 
fore you  would  escape  perditioil,  and 
cherish  an  authorized  hope  of  hea- 
ven, receive  the  truth  as  I  deliver  it 
to  you. 

Bishop.  As  Christ's  agent,  and  hav- 
ing his  authority  in  my  hands,  I  re- 
quire you  to  come  and  receive  bap- 
tism at  my  hands,  that  being  thus  re- 
generated, and  sealed  unto  the  day  of 
redemption,  you  may  be  converted 
and  by  partaking  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per at  my  hands  may  be  assured  of 
salvation.  And  I  tell  you  that  none 
but  I  and  my  brethren  of  the  episco- 
pal order  can  admit  you  into  the 
cluirch,  can  regenerate  you,  and  as- 
sure you  of  a  title  to  God's  coven- 
anted mercies. 

Bishop.  I,  the  accredited  agent  of 
heaven,  administer  to  you  these  sa- 
craments, whereby,  as  Christ's  sub- 
stitue  on  earth,  and  clothed  with  au- 
thority for  that  purpose,  "  I  pledge 
the  glorious  source  of  all  mercy  and 
grace"  to  you,  and  hereby  I  give  to 
you  the  assurance  of  salvation.  And 
1  require  you  to  believe  that  there  is 


JReview  of  Bishop  llavenscroft*s  Vindicaiioji  and  Defence.    63 

them  you  are  to  considevUlM  as  pledg-  no  other  authority  on  earth,  save  that 
lUG  HIMSELV  to  the  humble  believer,  to  which  is  vested  in  me  and  my  epis- 
do  all  that  is  there  set  forth  and  prom-  copal  brethren,  tiuis  to  bind  the  God 
iscd.  of  Heaven  to  the   fulfilment  of  the 

promises  of  his  word. 

Such  is  the  difference  between  bishop  R.  and  us  in  relation  to 
these  subjects.  Can  it  be  necessary  to  argue  the  point  with  him? 
Can  any  one  read  the  New  Testament,  and  doubt  a  moment  where 
the  truth  lies  ?  Can  any  one  help  being  shocked,  the  bishop's 
salvo  notwithstanding,  when  he  sees  what  claims  are  set  up  for 
Episcopalians  by  this  their  fearless  champion.  "  The  Bible,  the 
Bible  is  the  religion  of  protestants."  The  Bible  is  their  sub- 
stitute for  Christ's  person  on  earth;  because  it  contains  the  very 
words  which  he  spake,  the  very  doctrines  which  he  taught.  It  is 
there  we  tind  "  truth  without  mixture  of  error;"  there  is  our  war- 
rant for  faith,  our  assurance  of  hope,  our  authority  for  adminis- 
tration. And  the  ministers  of  this  religion  are  either  teachers  to 
assist  the  people,  as  we  said,  in  understanding  the  true  meaning  of 
the  word  and  sacraments;  or  they  are  instruments  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  those  sacraments.  The  vvhole  authority,  and  power  is 
from  heaven.  "  We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the 
excellency  of  the  power  may  be  of  God,  and  not  of  man." 

These  remarks  will  enable  the  reader,  to  understand  what  an- 
swer we  would  give  to  such  personal  addresses  as  the  following. 

"  Dr  Rice — is  this  any  thing  like  the  work  you  say  you  are  cornmissioned 
by  Heaven  to  perform  ?  When  you  baptise,  do  you  not  profess  to  bring  an 
alien  into  covenant  with  God,  and  to  seal  him  to  the  day  of  redemption  ? 
When  you  preach,  do  you  not  declare  the  conditions  of  salvation,  denounce 
the  punishment  of  sin,  exhort  to  repentance,  and  instruct  and  build  up 
unto  faith  and  holiness?  When  you  administer  the  Lord's  supper,  do  you 
not  negotiate  afresh  the  pardon  of  the  penitent,  and  replenish  and  confirm 
the  grace  of  worthy  partakers?  When  you  visit  the  sick  and  dying,  are 
not  the  consolations  of  religion  at  your  disposal  according  to  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case  ?  And  in  all  this  are  you  not  an  agent — feel  you  not 
that  you  are  an  agent,  deriving  your  warrant  and  authority  for  all  you  do 
from  the  great  head  of  the  church,  through  the  visible  church  on  earth  ? 
Where  then  is  the  wrong,  or  the  error  on  my  part,  in  this  view  of  the  pur= 
pose  of  the  church  ?"— p.  28. 

Truly  we  have  no  such  powers — Heaven  forbid  that  we  should 
ever  pretend  to  them.  We  seal  no  one  to  the  day  of  redemption.  Let 
the  bishop  look  into  his  New  Testament  and  he  will  tind  that  this 
is  the  othce  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  do  not  negotiate  afresh  the  pardon 
of  thepenitent.  This  strange  language  implies,  as  far  as  we  under- 
stand it,  what  we  had  supposed  no  protestant  ever  claimed.  The 
work  of  procuring  pardon  is  not  ours,  but  Christ''s,  "  seeing  he 
ever  liveth  to  make  intercession  for  us;"  and  if  any  man  sin,  we 
have  an  advocate  with  the  Father.  We  have  no  stores  of  consolation 
at  our  disposal,  for  the  sick  and  the  dying.  All  that  we  can  do  is  to 
direct  the  sinner  to  the  Lamb  of  God,  to  set  before  him  the  truths 
of  scripture  respecting  the  plan  of  salvation,  and  pray,  on  his  be- 
half, for  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  this,  we  verily  be- 
lieve, is  all  that  any  man  has  it  in  his  power  to  do.  For  the  rest, 
they  are  the  pretensions  of  another  age,  revived.     And  we  have 


C4    Review  of  Bis'iiop  Ravenscrqft*s  Vindication  and  Defence, 

adverted  to  the  subject  to  let  it  be  seen,  that  the  notions  and  claims 
of  high  church  in  the  present  day,  are  exactly  such  as  were  intro- 
duced, when  the  great  corruption  of  Christianity  was  in  progress. 
We  challenge  any  one  to  show  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the 
pure  ages  of  the  church  any  thing  bearing  the  remotest  resemblance 
to  pretensions  such  as  are  here  broadly  asserted.  No  apostle  ever 
dared  to  say  that  he  by  baptism  sealed  a  man  to  the  day  of  redemp- 
tion: no  apostle  ever  presumed  to  think  that  in  administering  the 
Lord's  supper,  he  negotiated  the  pardon  of  the  penitent.  Such 
daring  language  was  reserved  for  the  revelation  of  the  man  of  sin. 
But  here  let  us  not  be  misunderstood.  We  believe,  that  bishop  K. 
uses  these  words  in  ignorance  of  the  manner,  in  which  they  will 
strike  the  ear  of  a  protestant;  and  of  the  meaning  they  will  nat- 
urally convey  to  the  mind.  He  is  but  little  acquainted  with  prot- 
estant theology.  It  is  a  pity  that  he  has  not  the  aid  of  an  experien- 
ced theologian  in  the  composition  of  his  works.  Lay  deputies  and 
lawyers,  who  mingle  much  in  the  world,  are  very  well  able  to  tell 
what,  in  pamphlets  and  sermons,  is  too  strong  for  the  people  yet  to 
hear;  but  as  they  are  unacquainted  with  the  technical  language  of 
theology,  with  the  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  or  the  history  of 
religious  controversy,  they  allow  many  a  passage  to  pass  as  good 
high  church  doctrine,  which  savours  a  great  deal  too  strongly  of 
popery.  This  is  not  surprising  when  all  things  are  considered. 
In  the  market  place  in  Dublin  once — Ireland  is  the  country  of  the 
bishop  of  Limerick,  and  other  high  churchmen — it  was  proclaimed 
in  good  hibernian  brogue,  "  I  publish  the  banns  of  marriage  be- 
tween the  church  of  England  and  the  church  of  Rome!" — A  voice 
was  heard  in  the  crowd,  "  1  forbid  the  banns!"  For  what  reason? 
cried  the  herald.  "Arrah,"  rejoined  the  other,  "  because  the  par- 
ties are  too  near  akin"  It  is  even  so.  There  is  near  consan- 
guinity between  high  church  all  the  world  over.  And  it  requires 
attention  and  care  to  discriminate  between  what  may  pass  for  tole7'' 
ahle  protestanism  among  high  churchmen,  and  downright  popery — 
Ahl  Sutor,  ne  ultra  crepidnm. 

The  above  Anecdote  is  intended  for  every  one,  who  makes  the 
being  of  the  Church,  and  man's  warranted  hopes  of  heaven  de- 
pend on  Church  Order.     He  is  not  far  from  Popery. 

This  remark  leads  us  directly  to  our  subject.  The  Parity  of 
ministers  of  the  gospel.  Against  this  part  of  the  polity  of  the  Church, 
bishop  R.  directs  all  his  force.  He  comes  on  like  a  cloud  in  a  dry 
summer.  The  heavens  grow  dark,  a  mighty  roar  is  heard  in  the 
far  off  forest — we  close  our  shutters,  in  apprehension  of  a  hail- 
storm— but  «oon  we  perceive  the  return  of  sunshine — there  was 
nothing  but  wind  and  dust. 

It  is  well  here  to  state  distinctly  what  are  the  sentiments  held 
by  the  Reviewer,  in  common  with  his  brethren,  on  this  point. 
That  there  are  different  ojices  in  the  church  of  Christ  is  maintained 
by  all  Presbyterians.  Of  course  they  hold,  that  men  appointed  by 
the  church  to  one  office,  ought  not  to  discharge  the  duties  of  ano- 
ther office,  to  which  they  were  7iot  appointed.  A  member  of  the 
church,  chosen  to  be  aDeacoD,.  that  is  appointed  to  distribute  the 


Seview  of  Bishop  EavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence,    65 

charity  of  the  church,  ought  not  to  undertake  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipline. A  man  chosen  to  assist  the  Pastor  in  the  exercise  of  dis- 
cipHne,  is  not  therefore  warranted  to  administer  the  sacraments,  &c. 
It  is  just  so  in  our  republic.  The  Legislative,  Judicial,  and  Exec- 
utive departments  are  separated,  and  kept  distinct.  The  welfare 
of  the  country,  the  preservation  of  liberty  requires  this.  But  these 
different  offices  do  not  create  any  difference  in  rank,  any  order  of 
nobility  in  the  Commonwealth.  There  is  no  character  impressed 
on  the  officers  of  state  by  their  appointment.  In  the  church,  there 
is  a  distinction  of  offices  in  regard  to  importance,  that  is  usefulness, 
just  as  in  our  commonwealth.  And  it  is  only  in  reference  to  this 
idea,  that  we  use  the  term  dignity.  But  we  utterly  disclaim  every 
thing  of  ecc/esms<2caZ  nobility,  it  is  the  will  of  Christ  that  there 
should  be  various  offices  in  the  Church,  to  answer  the  various 
purposes  of  the  Christian  Society.  And  as  we  have  before  shown 
that  the  great  benefits  of  Christianity  are  produced  by  the  power 
of  truth,  so  we  think  it  clear  that  the  first,  the  most  important  of- 
fice in  the  Church  is  that  of  the  Teacher.  He  who,  by  the  word 
and  sacraments,  affords  instruction  to  the  people,  is  employed  in 
doing  the  most  important  service  that  can  be  performed  in  the 
Church.  But  this  is  done  by  every  minister  of  the  gospel.  There  is 
then,  we  maintain  among  all  who  sustain  this  office,  a  perfect  equali- 
ty. There  are  two  important  reasons,  why  Presbyterians  earnest- 
ly contend  for  this  point. 

1.  Because  they  are  fully  persuaded  that  such  was  the  polity  of 
the  church  as  organized  by  the  Apostles,  according  to  the  will  of 
Christ. 

2.  Because,  the  history  of  the  church  proves  that  the  elevation 
of  men  to  a  distinct  order,  and  giving  them  rank  and  pozver  above 
their  brethren,  has  done  great  mischief,  has  corrupted  the  simpli- 
city of  the  gospel,  has  brought  a  worldly  and  ambitious  spirit  into 
the  church.  It  is  always  hazardous  to  entrust  men  with  power. 
Ecclesiastical  power  is  of  all  others  the  most  dangerous.  It  tyran- 
nizes over  the  will,  the  understanding,  the  conscience  of  man.  It 
brings  him  to  crouch  before  his  fellow,  as  a  representative  of  God, 
as  a  substitute  for  Christ  on  earth;  it  debases  him;  and  inflates 
with  intolerable  pride  and  arrogance,  the  poor  mortal,  who  struts 
among  his  fellows,  and  strides  over  them,  in  all  the  superiority  of 
ghostly  dignity.  The  case  is  widely  different,  when  a  man  is  ad- 
mitted into  the  ministerial  office,  with  the  full  understanding  that 
he  is  on  the  same  level,  and  must  remain  always  on  the  same  level 
with  all  his  fellow  teachers:  that  all  the  authority  which  he  ever 
can  exercise  instead  of  being  vested  in  him  is  derived  from  the 
word  of  God,  which  he  pre;iches;  that  the  obligation  of  the  people 
to  believe  and  obey  arises  from  this,  that  he  preaches  the  word  of 
God;  that  the  sacraments  which  he  administers,  are  God's  signs 
and  seals,  and  for  this  reat^on  alone  they  are  employed  to  signify  the 
truth,  and  give  assurance  to  hope.  The  Presbyterians,  and  other 
christian  denominations  then  have  good  reason  for  opposing  the 
progress  of  prelacy  in  our  country.  "~ 

But  let  us  now  hear  the  bishop  of  North  Carolina.  And  let  the 
reader  prepare  for  bold  assertion,  and  for  that  confidence,  which 
bears  down  weak  and  uninformed  minds. 


G6     Beviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  DefencL. 

*'No  fact  can  be  established  by  reasoning  solely  ;  whatever  then  hath  been 
reasoned  by  the  ingenuity  and  research  of  men  contending  for  parity— is  of 
no  moment,  until  the  fact  be  previously  established  by  proper  evidence. — 
And  so  sure  am  I,  of  the  fact  being  the  very  reverse  of  parity,  that  if  in 
scripture,  or  in  ecclesiastical  history,  you  can  point  to  any  branch  of  the 
church  of  Christ  in  the  Apostle's  days — or,  from  thence  to  the  15th  century 
inclusive,  modelled  and  governed  upon  this  principle,  and  acknowledged 
in  communion  with  the  catholic  or  universal  church,  I  will  publicly  recant 
every  word  I  have  written  or  spoken  on  the  subject. 

"The  establishment  of  imparity  however  does  not  necessarily  establish 
any  particular  number  of  orders  in  the  ministry — two  orders  being  as  good 
as  two  hundred  to  defeat  the  pretensions  of  parity.  The  question  as  to  the 
number  oi  orders  in  the  cliurch  is  still  open,  and  is  as  much  a  question  of 
fact,  as  that  of  one  order  only  ;  and  on  this  fact  I  maintain,  tliat  the  testi- 
mony of  scripture  is  direct  for  three  orders  in  the  ministry  of  that  church, 
which  Christ  purchased  with  his  own  blood,  and  planted  and  established  in 
this  world  by  his  Apostles. 

"That  the  Apostles  were  ministers  is  clear  from  their  own  acknowledg- 
ment— "  Who  then  is  Paul  and  who  is  Apollos — but  Ministers  by  whom  ye 
believed"  1  Corinth.  3 — 5.  "  Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  the  jhj/hs- 
?ers  of  Christ"  1  Corinth.  4 — 1.  "Who  also  hath  made  us  able  ministers 
of  the  New  Testament"  2  Corinth.  3 — 6.  From  the  testimony  of  scripture 
then,  we  have  these  three  orders  existing  and  acting  in  the  church  from  the 
beginning. 

"First — Deacons,  who  were  ordained  by  the  laying  on  the  hands  of  the 
Apostles,  Acts  6 — 6,  who  were  authorised  to  preach  and  baptize.  Acts  8 — 
12 — 38.  Secondly — Presbyters,  stiled  indifferently  Elders  and  Bishops — 
\vhy  so  called  is  of  no  consequence  as  to  the  fact,  they  were  a  distinct  or- 
der from  the  Deacons.  Thirdly — the  Apostles  themselves,  as  that  order 
from  which  both  the  others  derived  their  commission  and  authority.  The 
fact  then  that  there  were  three  orders  in  tlie  church  of  Christ,  during  the 
life-time  of  the  Apostles,  is  established  by  the  irrefragable  testimony  of 
scripture,  and  as  the  fact  is  all  that  we  are  at  present  concerned  with,  you 
must  show  that  I  have  quoted  the  scriptures  wrong,  or  lose  your  cause. — 
Again  therefore  I  saj',  if  you  can  produce  any  branch  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  either  national  or  particular,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  the  I5th 
century  inclusive,  and  in  communion  with  the  church  founded  by  the  Apos- 
tles— which  was  not  constituted  on  the  principle  oi  imparity,  and  which  was 
not  governed  by  three  distinct  orders  of  ministers,  1  will  surrender  Episco- 
pal preeminence  to  Presbyterian  parily."~pp.  38,  39. 

We  perfectly  agree  with  the  bishop,  that  the  question  here  is  a 
question  of  fact.  So  we  have  always  considered  it,  and  so  we  will 
treat  it.  But  all  that  as  Presbyterians  we  are  concerned  to  do  is, 
to  prove  that  according  to  the  appointnfipnt  of  Christ,  (he  standing 
and  perpetual  ministers  of  the  gospel  are  on  a  footing  of  equality. 
It  is  necessary,  however,  to  make  a  remark  or  two  on  the  meaning 
of  the  word  minister:  and  this  especially,  as  the  substance  of  these 
remarks  admits  of  an  easy  application  to  other  terms. 

The  original  word  (biaxovog)  rendered  minister,  is  a  general  term, 
signifying  a  servant,  ui  aU<  ndant,  &<•..  and  in  the  New  Testament  it 
often  occurs  in  this  general  sense.  But  in  speaking  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  of  Christ,  its  signilication  is  much  more  limited. 
Standing  without  adjuncts,  as  in  Phil.  i.  1,  the  word  signifies  Dea- 
cons, namely  such  persons  as  are  mentioned  in  the  sixth  Chapter  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  of  v.'hom  more  in  a  little  while.  But 
when  it  is  put  in  construction  with  such  words  as,  Christ,  God,  the 
Lord,  the  Gospel,  it  designates  religious  instructors,  persons  who 
preach  the  gospel  •-  as  in  2  Cor.  iii,,  6.     "  Who  made  us  able  min- 


lievietv  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojfs  Vindication  and  Jkfence.     o: 

isters  of  the  New  Testament"  {hlfixovovg  lyjg  KCLiinc,  hia%yim,q) 
see  also  2  Cor.  vi,  4.  xi,  23.  Kph.  iii,  7.  vi,  21,  and  other  pas- 
sages. Now  it  is  of  ministers  in  this  sense  that  we  speak  in  this  dis- 
cussion; of  men  set  apart  to  teach  the  christian  religion,  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments  of  the  church,  and  do  all  things  necessary  to 
perpetuate  the  religion  of  which  they  are  teachers;  in  a  word  we 
s^teak  of  ministers  of  the  gospel.  Concerning  these  we  affirm  tiiat 
there  is,  according  to  the  true  pattern  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  no 
official  inequality  among  them,  no  difference  of  rajik  or  order — 
there  are  no  patents  of  nobility  granted  in  the  Church  of  Christ. 

But  let  it  be  remarked  that  if  this  part  of  Presbyterian  polity 
were  utterly  overthrown,  still  the  system  of  diocesan  prelacy 
would  not  thereby  be  established.  For  that  system  not  only  re- 
quires the  existence  of  three  orders;  bishops,  priests,  and  deacom: 
but  demands  indisputable  evidence  that,  according  to  the  will  of 
Christ,  none  but  a  bishop  as  distinguished  from  priests  and  deacons 
can  ordain  to  the  gospel  ministry,  administer  the  rite  of  confirma- 
tion, he.  If  the  bishop  of  North  Carolina  then  had  succeeded  ac- 
cording to  his  wish,  and  trampled  Presbyterian  parity  in  the  dust, 
still  only  half  of  his  work  would  have  been  accomplished.  Cut 
let  us  see  how  he  executes  the  first  part  of  his  work. 

He  gravely  undertakes  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  were  ministers. 
In  this  he  has  beyond  a  doubt  succeeded.  For  such  they  certainly 
were.  He  then  dashes  to  his  conclusion,  that  there  were  three 
orders  in  the  ministry,  and  afterwards  adduces  his  proofs. 

1.  He  begins  with  deacons,  and  appears  to  think  that  in  two  lines 
and  a  half  he  has  settled  this  part  of  the  controversy.  After  a 
while,  however,  he  resumes  the  subject  and  thus  discourses. 

"  Do  not  however  suppose  sir,  that  1  am  unaware  of  the  ground  you  take, 
to  obviate  this  plain  testimony  from  scripture  on  tliese  points,  as  matters  of 
fact — no,  sir,  the  Presbyterian  hypothesis,  that  the  order  of  Deacons  was 
not  a  distinct  clerical  office,  in  the  christian  ministry,  but  provided  exclu- 
sively for  the  care  of  the  poor,  is  unsupported  by  any  thing  but  assertion. 
I  have  proved  from  scripture,  that  the  Deacons  in  the  primitive  church, 
were  solemnly  set  apart  to  that  office  by  prayer,  and  imposition  of  the 
Apostles  hands — that  they  preached  and  baptized — that  thirty  years  after 
the  first  mention  of  them,  and  in  a  distant  churcii,  they  are  recognised  and 
addressed  by  St.  Paul  as  an  established  order  in  the  ministry.  I  have  given 
you  scripture  and  fifteen  centuries  of  ecclesiastical  history,  to  contest  this 
as  a  fact,  or  to  produce  the  slightest  ground  to  believe,  that  they  v/ere 
chiefly,  and  as  their  proper  official  duty,  appointed  to  the  care  of  the  poor 
— or  that  this  order,  is  in  any  sense  analagous  to  that  class  of  men  stiled 
Deacons  in  the  Presbyterian  system  of  government.  And  unless  you  can 
do  this,  the  6th  chapter  of  tl»e  form  of  government  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  these  United  States,  is  bottomed  on  a  perversion  of  the  texts  of 
■cripture,  brought  to  support  the  assertion  there  made,  as  to  the  order  of 
Deacons,  and  is  also  in  direct  opposition  to  the  judgment  and  practice  of 
the  church  of  Christ,  from  the  Apostles  days  to  the  reformation.  Was 
Stephen,  I  pray  you,  serving  tables  and  waiting  upon  the  poor  like  a  Pres- 
byterian Deacon,  when,  "  full  of  faitli  and  power  he  did  great  wonders  and 
miracles  among  the  people  ?"  Was  such  tlie  occupation  of  Piiilip,  when 
he  preached  Christ  to  the  Samaritans — converted  and  baptized  them— was 
he  thus  employed  when  he  baptized  tbe  Ethiopian  Eunuch,  and  preached 
unto  him  Jesus  ?"-- -pp.  41,  42. 


t)8     Heriew  of  Bishop  RavenscrojV s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Let  U3  now  examine  this  subject  for  ourselves.  The  bishop  ot 
>s'orth  CaroHna  says,  (pa.  39)  that  the  deacons  mentioned,  Acts  vi, 
->  were  ordained  by  the  hiying  on  the  hands  of  the  Apostles."  We 
mark  this  word,  because  it  is  not  in  the  text.  The  Apostles  prayed 
and  laid  their  hands  on  the  deacons.  But  that  they  ordained  them, 
in  bishop  R's  sense  of  the  word,  is  not  stated  in  the  text.  Imposi- 
tion of  hands  was  very  common  among  the  Jews  and  primitive 
christians:  as  when  one  prayed  for  another,  or  pronounced  a  bene- 
diction, for  designation  of  his  person,  (SsLxllXQg)  he  laid  his 
hands  on  his  head.  Bishop  II.  means  by  ordination  the  impression 
of  the  clerical  character,  or,  as  we  would  say,  induction  into  the  of- 
fice of  christian  teacher.  We  do  utterly  deny  that  this  was  done. 
And  the  reason  is  derived  from  the  plain  facts  of  the  case.  The 
multitude  of  the  disciples  had  become  so  great,  that  it  was  utterly 
impossible  for  the  Apostles  to  attend  to  the  distribution  of  the  alms 
of  the  churcl>  among  the  poor  Some  partiality  or  negligence  was 
manifested  by  those  who  performed  this  service;  so  that  native  He- 
brews had  an  advantage  over  those  called  Grecians.  On  hearing 
this  the  Apostles  told  the  brethren  that  it  was  not  right,  or  expedient 
(so  Ovx  dpearov  ought  to  be  rendered)  for  them  to  lay  aside  the 
business  of  preaching,  and  attend  to  pecuniary  affairs.  This  is  un- 
doubtedly thrt  meaning  of  the  original.*  To  prevent  this  inter- 
ruption of  the  proper  functions  of  the  Apostles,  the  expedient  is 
adopted  of  choosing  seven  men,  all  Grecians,  as  is  probable  from  their 
names,  to  attend  particularly  to  this  pecuniary  concern.  The  pro- 
posal pleased  the  people;  the  deacons  were  chosen,  and  inducted 
into  their  office — Now  we  ask  what  the  office  was?  Bishop  R.  says 
a  clerical  office; — they  were  preachers.  This  makes  the  whole 
statement  amount  to  this — The  Apostles  say,  it  is  not  right  for 
us  to  quit  preaching  and  attend  to  the  distribution  of  your  money: 
choose  some  other  persons  for  this  business: — "  But  we  will  give 
ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and  to  the  ministry  of  the  word." 
The  multitude  in  accordance  v/ith  these  directions  chose  seven 
men  for  this  purpose,  and  the  Apostles  ordained  them  preachers. 
This  was  indeed  a  strange  way  of  getting  rid  of  the  difficulty.  If 
the  bishop's  book  goes  to  a  second  edition,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  he 
will  explain  to  us  how  the  appointing  of  seven  adilitional  preachers, 
gave  the  Apostles  more  time  for  preaching.  If  they  had  said,  it  is 
not  right  for  us  to  give  up  the  distribution  of  money,  and  spend  so 
much  time  in  preaching;  look  out  for  some  others,  and  we  will  ap- 
point them  to  this  service — then  the  bishop  would  have  I. ad  sooie 
reason  for  his  assertion.  But  be  it  known  that  the  Apostles  were 
not  like  a  great  many  modern  bishops,  who  have  so  much  to  do  that 
they  cannot  find  time  to  preach.  No:  they  thought  this  their  most 
important  business;  and  left  pecuniary  affairs  to  others,  that  is  to 

*Tdf$  tpane^aig  hiaxOVUV.  TpaTtffa  is  origuially  a  table.  In 
this  connexion  it  signifies  a  counter  on  which  money  was  laid.  And 
TpOt7te^t7>7$  is  a  money  changer,  a  broker.  The  table  here  is,  by  a  very 
common  figure  put  for  what  it  contained,  and  hence  the  phrase  quoted 
means,  to  attend  to  money  matters. 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence.    09 

the  deacons.  We  suppose  that  a  man  of  common  sense  and  obser- 
vation will  hardly  suppose,  that  in  order  to  enable  one  to  take  care 
of  money,  and  distribute  it  judiciously,  it  is  necessary  to  make  a 
preacher  of  him.  The  truth  is;  the  facts  of  this  case,  and  the 
whole  reason  of  the  measure  adopted,  are  plainly  and  directly 
against  bisiiop  R.  It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  that  when  the  ser- 
vice of  the  word,  and  tbe  service  of  tables  was  separated,  "  the 
word  of  God  increased,''  &c.  sec  Acts  vi,  7.  But  says  he,  these 
deacons  "  were  authorised  to  preach  and  baptize,  Acts  viii,  12 — 38. 
It  is  undeniable  that  in  the  passages  here  referred  to,  Philip  did 
both  preach  the  gospel,  and  baptize.  No  man  in  his  senses  ever 
disputed  these  facts.  But  there  is  a  question  here  of  some  weight, 
which  our  author,  in  his  haste  to  come  at  his  conclusion,  took  no 
time  to  determine.  Did  Philip  perform  these  offices  as  a  Deacon, 
or  as  an  Evangelist?  Much  depends  on  the  answer  to  be  given  to 
to  this  question.     VVe  remark, 

1.  It  is  an  undeniable  fact,  that  Philip  was  appointed  a  deacon, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  attending  to  the  pecuniary  affairs  of  the 
church  in  Jerusalem;  and  no  other  object  of  his  appointment  is 
there  mentioned. 

2.  It  is  undeniable  that  Philip  was  not  now  in  Jerusalem,  but 
first  in  Samaria;  then  in  the  wilderness  with  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch; 
after  that  at  Azotus;  and  then  in  other  places. 

3.  It  is  equally  certain  that  this  same  Philip  is  called  in  Acts  xxi,  8, 
an  Evangelist. 

We  then  deny  that  when  Philip  was  at  Samaria,  at  Azotus,  at 
Cesarea,  he  sustained  the  character,  or  performed  the  offices  of  a 
deacon — He  was  a  minister  of  the  word,  and  not  a  minister  of  the 
money  table.  We  consider  the  facts  of  his  preaching  and  baptizing, 
as  sufficient  evidence  of  this.  But  for  confirmation  of  the  truth 
let  us  consider  farther,  what  was  the  proper  office  of  a  deacon  in 
the  primitive  church.  In  the  New  Testament,  the  word  occurs  in 
the  sense  now  sought  for,  only  three  times.  Rom.  xvi,  1.  Phil,  i,  1. 
2  Tim.  iii,  8  and  12.  The  first  passage  referred  to  mentions  a 
woman  as  a  deacon.  "I  commend  unto  you  Phoebe  our  sister,  which 
is  a  servant  of  the  church  which  is  in  Cenchrea"  (oD(7av  kaxovov, 
who  is  a  deacon;  diaconissa.)  We  learn  from  Pliny's  celebrated 
epistle,  X,  97,  that  females  were  employed  as  servants  of  the  church 
in  his  day.  "I  judged  it  necessary  to  inquire  by  torture  of  two 
maid  servants,  whom  they  called  ministrce,  what  was  the  truth."  If 
the  bishop  has  at  hand  Cotelerius's  edition  of  the  Apostolical  Fa- 
thers, he  will  find  an  account  of  female  deacons  in  Const,  app.  iii, 
15.  Or  Bingham.  Eccl  Antq.  will  inform  him  that  thoy  assisted 
m  baptizing  women,  took  care  of  the  poor  and  the  sick,  and  attend- 
ed to  other  inferior  business  of  the  church.  It  will  he  admitted,  we 
presume,  by  bishop  R.  that  the  female  deacon  (n  Siaxovog)  was 
not  a  clerical  character.  P>om  the  pass;ige  in  Phil,  i,  1,  we  can 
learn  nothing  certain  as  to  the  special  matter  of  inquiry  now  be- 
fore us.  It  would  seem  indeed,  that  deacons  were  officers  in  every 
regularly  organized  church;  and  it  does  not  appear  probable  that 
there  should  be  two  distinct  sets  of  preachers  in  one  church:  or 


70     Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt's  Vindicalion  and  Defence. 

that  the  bishops  at  Philippi,  were  lord  bishops  above  preaching. 
Let  the  reader  judge  of  the  circumstance  of  the  case,  and  say 
wliether  it  is  at  all  likely  that  the  deacons  in  the  church  at  Philippi, 
\vere  ministers  of  the  gospel.  And  if  he  thinks  they  were,  let  hitn 
say  what  was  the  office  of  the  bishops  in  that  church? 

Turning  to  (he  passage  in  1  Tim.  iii,  8 — 13.  We  find  something 
to  give  us  information.  In  the  preceding  verses  the  Apostle  lays 
down  the  qualifications  of  a  Presbj'ter  or  bishop,  exactly  in  accord- 
ance with  the  nature  of  his  office.  In  the  words  before  us,  he 
)iroceeds  in  the  same  way  with  regard  to  the  deacon.  We  say  that 
the  deacon  was  not  by  his  offire  a  teacher  of  religion,  but  a  minis- 
ter of  the  pecuniary  or  secular  concerns  of  the  church.  Bishop 
K.  says  he  was  a  clergyman.  Let  the  particulars  stated  by  the 
Apostle  in  this  list  of  qualifications  be  examined  one  by  one,  and 
see  which  assertion,  ours  or  the  bishop's,  best  suits  the  text. 
A  deacon  must  he  grave  (OE^VOC,.^     This  is  expected  in  any  officer 

of  the  church  of  Christ. 
Not  double  tongued — not  speaking  one  thing,  and  meaning  anoUier. 
This  will  suit  any  office-bearer  in  the  church  no  matter  what  his 
calling. 
Mot  given  to  much  n;ine.     A  drinking  deacon  cannot  safely  be  trusted 
with  money — nor  can  a  drinking  parson  be  tolerated  in  the  church. 
,\ota  lover  of  Jilthy  lucre.     This  suits  also  every  officer,  and  every 
christian.     But  it  applies  most  exactly,  to  a  man  who  is  concern- 
ed by  the  nature  of  his  office,  in  pecuniary  aflairs.      The  cha- 
racter here  reprobated  is  explained  by  a  Greek  writer,  as  one 
"who  takes  from  those  from   whom  he  ought  not,  and  gives  to 
those  to  whom  he  ought  not." 
Holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  conscience.     The  mystery 
of  the  faith,  here,  is  nothing  more  than  the  Christian  religion;  and 
the  requirement  is  that  deacons  be  sincere  professors  of  Chris* 
tianity. 

We  do  not  then  find  in  all  this,  one  single  syllable  respecting  the 
qualifications  of  a  teacher. — When  the  Apostle  told  us  what  a 
bishop  ought  to  be,  we  find  him  requiring  qualities  suited  to  the 
office  of  a  teacher  of  righteousness.  To  those  which  betoken  the 
sincerity  of  his  christian  profession,  he  adds,  by  the  use  of  one  com- 
prehensive word,  those  which  regard  him  as  a  religious  instruc- 
tor, {hthaxlixov)  he  must  be  "apt  to  teach:"  But  when  the  in- 
spired writer  speaks  o^ deacons  there  is  not  a  word  of  this.  The 
whole  amounts  to  the  requirement,  that  he  be  a  sincerely  honest 
man,  and  a  good  Christian. 

But  the  bishop  says,  that  when  the  deacons  used  their  office 
well,  they  purchased  to  themselves  a  good  degree,  "that  is  entitled 
themsL'lves  to  advancement  in  the  ministry,"  &.c.  (pa.  43.)  The 
words  quoted  are  bishop  R's.  explanation  of  Paul's  words  in  1st 
Tim.  iii,  13,  But  to  this  interpretation  we  object.  The  original 
word  rendered  a  degree  (jSa^fiOV  fl'Olll  ^aivio)  signifies  advance- 
ment in  any  way  whatever.  Now  we  grant  that  if  the  usage  of 
later  times  be  admitted  as  decisive,  there  is  evidence  enoiigh  in  the 
decrees  of  councils  that  the  term  means  advancement   in  office. 


Review  of  Bishop  RavenscrojVs  Vindication  and  Defence,    7  V 

But  it  ought  to  be  remembered  that  the  usage  of  words  three  or 
four  hundred  years  after  the  days  of  Paul,  when  the  form  of  the 
Church  hierarchy  was  moilelled  according  to  the  views  of  ambiti- 
ous prelates,  is  a  very  unsatisfactory  way  of  determining  the  sense 
of  a  phrase  as  used  by  the  Apostle  himself.  Accoidingly  we  find 
the  best  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern,  giving  another  meaning  to 
this  word.  Of  the  ancients,  w>^  mention  only  Tlieodoret,  who  ex- 
plained this  advancement  {(3d^ix6v)  by  progress  towards  heaven- 
ly honour  and  happintiasi:  Others  say  "a  good  degree  of  honour — 
so  that  no  one  hath  reason  to  decline,  nr  despi-^e  that  officf^:"  name- 
ly the  office  of  deacon.  But  if  the  word  here  means  official  ad- 
vancement, it  will  not  in  the  least  degree  serve  bishop  R's  pur- 
pose, for  nobody  in  the  world  denies  that  a  deacon  is  an  officer  in 
the  Church.  What  we  deny  is,  thnt  the  deacon  is  a  minister  of 
the  gospel,  a  religious  teacher.  A  deacon  who  in  the  course  of 
his  service,  showed  himsplf  to  be  qualified  as  a  religious  teacher, 
has  no  doubt  frequently  been  appointed  to  that  office.  This,  there 
is  every  reason  to  believe,  was  the  case  with  Philip,  one  of  the 
seven.  But  that  as  a  deacon,  he  was  a  religious  teacher,  we  utter- 
ly deny.  We  utterly  deny  that  in  the  apostolical  church  there  was 
a  system  of  promotion  from  one  rank  to  another.  The  words  used 
by  the  Apostle  do  not  imply  this — the  practice  of  the  first  ages  do 
not  justify  the  system  of  three  orders. 

In  the  writings  of  the  apostolical  fathers,  as  they  are  called  Bar- 
nabas, Hermas,  Clemens  Romanus.  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  we  can- 
not find  the  least  evidence  that  Deacons  were  ministers  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  the  sense  in  which  bishop  R.  and  we  understand  the  term. 
But  in  Clement's  1.  Ep.  to  the  Corinthians,  we  find  this  declara- 
tion. Chap.  xlii.  (Cotelerius.  pa.  170.)  They  (i.  e.  the  Apostles) 
as  they  preached  the  gospel  in  diflerent  countries  and  cities  ap- 
pointed their  first  converts  (lag  a7tap;^a$)  the  bishops  and  dea- 
cons of  those  who  should  afterwards  believe.  This  testimony  we 
hold  to  be  in  exact  accordance  with  what  we  find  in  scripture,  as 
will  be  more  fully  considered  hereafter.  It  shows  that  the  apos- 
tles considered  a  church  as  organized  with  only  two  kinds  of  offi- 
cers. But  did  these  deacons  preach  the  gospel?  Clement  says 
not  a  word  on  this  subject. 

In  the  Canons  of  the  Apostles,  for  the  authority  of  which  many 
high  churchmen  have  vehemently  contended,  the  rules  respecting 
the  administration  of  Baptism,  are  addressed  only  to  bishops  and 
presbyters.  See  Can.  xli.  xlii.  This  reference  is  made  for  the 
sake  of  showing  that  when  these  canons  were  compiled,  deacons 
were  not  accustomed  to  baptize. 

If  bishop  R.  will  take  the  trouble  to  read  the  Apostolical  Consfi. 
intions,  he  will  find  that  the  compilers  of  that  work  were  very  far 
from  his  opinion  respecting  deacons.  For  according  to  them,  it 
was  the  business  of  the  deacon  to  see  that  all  the  people  took  their 
proper  places  in  the  church;  that  none  should  run  about  from 
place  to  place,  smile,  whisper,  or  nod  to  each  other;  to  see  that 
the  boys  who  stood  near  the  pulpit  behaved  well;  to  take  their 
places  on  each  side  of  the  altar  with  fly- flaps,  to  prevent  flies  from 


7£  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

getting  into  the  cups,  and  a  hunrlrefl  (hings  of  this  kind.  In  a  word, 
according  to  this  work,  the  deacons  were  servants  of  the  bishops, 
and  not  preachers  ot  the  uoiii  ui  God. 

Justin  Martyr  in  his  Ftrst  Apology,  uses  words  of  which  the  fol- 
lowing is  a  transhition,  "They  who  among  us  are  called  deacons, 
give  the  bread  and  wine  and  water,  after  consecration  by  thanks- 
giving, to  every  one  who  is  present,  and  carry  the  same  to  those 
who  are  absent."  The  original  of  these  words  may  be  found  in 
page  83  of  the  Paris  edition  of  1742. 

Oecumenius  in  Arts  vi,  says,  "The  Apostles  laid  their  hands  on 
those  who  were  chosen  deacons,  not  to  confer  on  them  that  rank, 
which  they  now  hold  in  the  churcli,  but  that  they  might  with  all 
diligence  and  attention  distribute  the  necessaries  of  life  to  widows 
and  orphans." 

It  would  be  tedious  to  go  on  quoting  testimony.  It  is  clear  that 
deacons  were  originally  set  apart  to  take  care  of  the  alms  of  the 
church,  to  distribute  them  fairly  and  judiciously;  that  there  is  not 
a  syllable  in  scripture  which  supports  the  opinion  that  they  preach- 
ed the  gospel;  that  in  speaking  of  their  qualitications,  the  apostle 
Paul  gives  not  the  slightest  hint  that  teaching  was  their  business; 
that  the  early  fathers  are  equally  silent  on  this  subject;  and  that 
in  the  records  of  antiquity  there  is  decisive  evidence  that  the  office 
of  the  deacon  was  about  as  different  from  that  of  a  minister  of  the 
word,  as  the  office  of  a  college  servitor  is  different  from  that  of  a 
professor.  The  sixth  chapter  of  the  Form  of  Government  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  therefore  is  not  "bottomed  on  a  perversion 
of  the  texts  of  scripture,  brought  to  support  the  assertion  there 
made" — it  is  not  "in  direct  opposition  to  the  judgment  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  of  Christ,  from  the  Apostle's  days  to  the  refor- 
mation." We  earnestly  advise  bishop  Pt.  to  make  himself  better 
acquainted  with  the  practice  of  the  church,  before  he  hazards  such 
assertions  again. 

But  says  the  bishop,  with  an  air  of  triumph,  "Was  Stephen,  I 
pray  you,  serving  tables,  and  waiting  on  the  poor,  like  a  Presbyte- 
rian deacon,  when  full  of  faith  and  power  he  did  great  wonders  and 
miracles  among  the  people?"  We  answer,  Were  Erskine,  Jen- 
nings and  Addison,  ministers  of  the  gospel,  when  they  wrote  their 
able  and  unanswerable  arguments  in  defence  of  Christianity?  Had 
their  arguments  been  maintained  orally,  would  that  circumstance 
have  made  the  slightest  difference  as  to  their  character?  Any 
christian  is  bound  to  defend  religion  in  the  best  way  he  can,  when- 
ever it  is  attacked.  Stephen's  vindication  of  the  truth,  and  his 
confutation  of  the  Jews,  then,  prove  nothing  as  to  the  point  before 
us.  And  his  working  of  miracles  is  noihing  to  the  purpose,  until 
bishop  11.  shall  prove  that  this  power  was  given  to  none  in  the 
primitive  church,  but  the  clergy. — .An  undertaking  in  which,  if  he 
has  any  prudence,  he  will  not,  Tssith  all  his  aids,  like  very  well  to 
engage. 

Again,  he  says  with  an  equally  triumphant  manner,  "Was  such 
the  occupation  of  Philip,  wlien  he  preached  Clirisi  to  tbe  Samari- 
tans, converted  and  baptized  them — was  he  thus  employed  when 
he  baptized  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch?  &c."    We  reply;  nobody  ever 


Review  of  Bishop  Havcnscrqft^s  Vindication  and  Defence.  7S 

thought  he  was — But  was  he  a  deacon  then?  Was  he  then  fultil- 
ling  the  office  to  which  he  hud  been  appointed;  taking  care  of  the 
poor,  and  allowing  leisure  to  the  Apostles  to  preach  the  word  ? 
Most  obviously  he  was  not  But  being  driven  from  Jerusalem  by 
persecution,  another  office  was  assigned  to  him,  namely  that  of 
minister  of  the  gospel;  and  we  find  him  afterwards  doing  the  work 
of  an  evangelist — an  office,  as  we  shall  show,  quite  different  from 
that  of  a  deacon. 

In  regard  then  to  the  Jlrst  order  in  the  christian  ministry,  We 
have  a  right  to  say,  that  bishop  R.  has  totally  failed.  There  were 
no  preaching  deacons  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  If  the  bishop 
will  make  himself  as  well  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  antiquity, 
as  a  bishop  ought  to  be,  he  will  find  that  this  device  oi  preaching 
deacons  was  got  up  for  the  sake  of  exalting  the  bishops.  At  tirst 
all  preachers  as  to  office,  were  on  a  level.  But  when  distinctions 
began  to  be  made,  when  a  worldl}^  spirit  crept  in,  it  was  found  that 
deacons  might  be  raised  from  their  oiiginal  office  to  the  Jirst  order 
in  the  ministry.  Presbyters  were  placed  next.  And  thus  bish- 
ops were  made  to  feel  themselves  highly  exalted  above  the  laity. 
When  the  work  was  once  began,  the  ingenuity  of  men  soon  devised 
additional  orders.  The  elevation  of  deacons  made  room  for  the 
office  of  subdeacon;  and  that  of  the  bishops  in  process  of  time  pre- 
pared the  way  for  archbishops.  Until  finally  the  Catholic  Church, 
the  Family  of  God  presented,  in  the  long  list  of  her  officers,  a 
greater  variety  of  ranks,  than  can  be  found  in  the  court  of  any 
earthly  monarch.  One  of  the  evils  of  these  incipient  steps  in  the 
corruption  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  was  the  high  spirit  wakened  up 
in  the  deacons.  Hence  the  attentive  reader  of  ecclesiastical  histo- 
ry will  find  complaints  of  the  insolence  and  haughtiness  of  this  or- 
der,  and  attempts  to  bring  them  down  to  their  proper  level. 

In  bishop  R's.  summary  mode  of  despritching  his  argument,  he  in 
the  next  place,  proceeds  thus,  in  proof  that  there  were  three 
orders  "  Secondly — Presbyters,  styled  indifferently  Elders  and 
Bishops — why  so  called  is  of  no  consequence  as  to  the  fact,  they 
were  a  distinct  order  from  deacons."  The  Apostles  constituted 
the  third  order.  There  ure  two  particulars  in  tiiis  statement,  in 
^vhich  we  agree  with  bishop  R.  1,  That  Presbyters  were  styled 
indifferently,  presbyters  or  bisliops.  2.  That  they  were  distinct 
from  deacons:  but  only  as  to  office.  Deacons,  as  we  have  shown, 
were  ministers  of  Counters;  Presbyters,  of  the  word  of  God. 

But  that  prelacy  may  gain  any  thing  from  the  facts  here  stated, 
it  is  necessary  that  its  advocates  shoiild  prove  two  things. 

1.  That  the  apostles  were  distinct  as  an  order,  from  other  min- 
isters of  the  Word. 

2.  That  it  was  intended  by  the  Head  of  the  Church  that  this  dis- 
tinct order  should  continue  in  tlie  Christian  Society.  Bishop  R. 
has  assumed  the  first  proposition  without  a  shadow  of  evidence;  and 
has  brought  no  satisfactory  proof  of  the  last. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  ttie  direct  consideration  of  this  sub- 
ject, we  beg  leave  to  offer  a  few  additional  remarks  on  the  use  of 
words. 


;4  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindicaiioii  and  Defence. 

All  the  terms  employed  to  designate  officers  in  the  church  are 
general  words  in  use  in  common  life.  Thus  apostle  signifies  mes- 
senger ;  bishop,  means  overseer;  presbyter  an  aged  man;  deacon,  a 
servant,  &c.  These  words  occur  in  the  N.  Testament  sometimes 
in  their  ordinary  or  sjeiieral  sense,  and  sometimes  in  what  may  be 
called  their  official  meaning.  The  case  is  the  same  with  many 
words  applied  to  civil  affairs,  such  as  president,  judge,  &c.  The 
rule  of  interpretation  here  is,  very  plain.  If  a  writer  uses,  deacon, 
presbyter,  bishoji,  &c.  in  speaking  of  officers  of  the  church,  desig- 
nating their  persons,  or  describing  their  qualificittion,  the  words  are 
to  be  interpreted  accordingly:  and  an  attentive  reader  can  no  more 
be  at  a  loss  to  ascertain  the  meaning,  than  we  are  to  tell  whether, 
when  one  uses  the  term  judge,  he  means  a  civil  officer ;  or,  a  man 
capable  of  deciding. 

We  observe  in  the  next  place,  that  the  officers  of  the  church  of 
Christ  in  the  N.  Testament,  go  under  various  names  of  which  by 
far  the  most  common  is  Presbyler.  (7ips(jl3vl£pog)  It  requires 
considerable  research  to  ascertain  the  precise  extent  of  the  appli- 
cation of  this  term:  but  this  is  not  necessary  to  our  present  pur- 
pose. We  know  that  it  was  applied  to  apostles  and  bishops.  For 
evidence  we  refer  to  1  Pet.  v,  1.  "The  Elders  (npsalSvlspag 
Presbyters)  who  are  among  you  /  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder, ^^ 
(<SV{i.npe<j[^vlEpog  a  fellow  Presbyter.)  2  John  1,  and  3  John  1. 
In  both  these  pass;iges  the  apostle  uses  the  same  word  concerning 
himself;  "The  Elder  to  the  elect  lady."— "The  Elder  to  the  be- 
loved Gaius."  Hence  it  is  manifest  that  the  apostles  called  them- 
selves Presbyters. — That  bishops  were  called  Presbyters  is  mani- 
fest from  Acts  xx,  17,  28.  Tit.  i,  5—7.  Bui  this  is  universally 
acknowledged. 

Now  it  admits  of  a  question  whether. the  .flpostle-Presb<tfters,  were 
a  different  order  from  the  Bishop- Presbyters.  It  is  our  opinion 
that  they  were  not.  We  do  not  find  any  thing  in  the  use  of  the 
words,  or  in  the  claims  of  the  apostles  to  warrant  the  contrary 
opinion.  We  have  before  remarked,  that  apostle  signifies  messen- 
ger. This  term  was  applied  to  the  i/.'S/nVc(i  teachers,  because  they 
were  sent  out  immediately  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  perform  a  particular 
service,  and  furnished  with  particular  powers  of  an  extraordinary 
character.  In  this  respect,  they  differed  from  all  other  presbyters. 
Still,  however,  they  lield  the  same  rank  with  otiier  teachers  of 
Christianity.  Our  views  of  this  subject  may  be  thus  illustrated.  It 
was  once  proposed,  at  an  extraordinary  period  in  the  history  of  our 
country,  to  make  General  Washington,  dictator.  Let  us  suppose 
that,  on  the  organization  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
t/iat  suggested  had  been  adopted.  He  would  have  then  been  Pres- 
ident with  all  the  powers  conferred  by  the  constitution,  and  Dicta- 
tor with  the  extraordinary  powers  conferred  for  a  special  object  by 
the  sovereign  people.  When  this  object  is  accomplished,  these 
powers  cease.  No  similar  powers  are  conferred  on  any  of  his  suc- 
cessors. They  are  elected  under  the  constitution,  and  exercise 
only  the  authority  with  which  by  that  sacred  instrument  they  are 
invested.     Now,  the  question  is,  did  President  Washington  in  the 


lieview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft^s  Vindication  and  Defence,   7  5 

ease  supposedj  hold  a  higher  rank  than  Presidents  Jefferson,  Acl=> 
ams,  Madison,  &c.  We  say  no. — And  just  so  we  think  it  was  ia 
the  church  of  Christ.  The  apostle-presbyters  such  as  Peter,  Paul, 
John,  and  others,  were  of  the  same  rank  or  order,  with  other  pres- 
byters; but  were  sent  with  extraordinary  powers,  on  an  extraordi- 
nary occasion.  The  decisive  evidence  of  their  possessing  these 
powers,  was  their  immediate  mission  by  the  sovereign  of  the  church, 
with  gifts  to  qualify  them  fully  for  their  extraordinary  work.  No 
man  could  sustain  a  claim  to  such  mission,  unless  he  was  able  to 
show  that  Christ  had  furnished  him  for  the  work.  Here  is  the 
sufficient  limitation  and  guard.  The  bishop-presbyters  came  after 
the  apostles,  without  their  extraordinary  gifts.  These  were  un- 
necessary; because  the  whole  work  of  revelation  was  completed; 
and  the  great  office  of  the  religious  teachers  was,  to  assist  their  fel- 
low-men in  understanding  that  system  of  religion,  which  had  been 
given  by  the  God  of  mercy  to  all.  Here  then  we  see  in  the  begin- 
ning,  but  one  order  of  religious  teachers.  In  other  words,  there 
was  no  difference  of  rank  in  the  ministery  of  the  gospel.  Such 
things  suit  the  genius  of  kingly  governments;  the  pomps  and  fash- 
tons  of  this  world;  but  to  christians  we  repeat  the  language  of  the 
Saviour,  "It  shall  not  be  so  among  you." — Accordingly  the  apos= 
ties  from  the  ascension  of  their  master  until  their  death  gave  not 
the  slightest  indication  that  they  ever  thought  of  this  idle  trump- 
ery. They  demanded  nothing  but  submission  to  the  will  of  Christ 
their  Lord,  as  authoritatively  announced  by  them.  They  claimed 
nothing  on  account  of  apostolical  rank;  but  simply  because  they 
were  inspired,  and  spoke  God's  truth  as  he  made  it  known  to  them. 
In  all  their  intercourse  with  their  brethren  in  the  ministry,  there  was 
perfect  equality,  the  utmost  gentleness  and  courtesy.  "  Tobit  and 
his  dog"  were  not  among  them.* 

We  have  here  briefly  exhibited  our  own  views  of  this  subject. 
Let  our  readers  compare  them  with  the  facts  recorded  in  the  New 
Testament  and  then  say  what  becomes  of  bishop  R's  three  orders. 

But  let  it  be  admitted  that  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  held  a 
higher  rank  in  the  church  than  other  religious  teachers;  that  they 
belonged  to  a  different  order.  Still  this  will  serve  his  cause  noth- 
ing, unless  he  can  prove  that  the  Head  of  the  church  intended  to 
continue  this  superior  office  in  the  Christian  Society,  through  every 
age:  But  this  we  venture  to  assert  that  the  bishop  never  can  do.  Om 
this  subject  it  gives  us  great  pleasure  to  use  the  language  of  the  cel- 
ebrated Dr  Barrow  in  his  treatise  of  the  Pope's  supremacy.  And 
our  readers  cannot  fail  to  see,  how  exactly  many  of  the  arguments 
used  by  prelates  against  popery,  suit  the  purposes  of  Presbyterians 
and  others  when  they  reason  against  prelacy.  Dr  Barrow  was  a 
very  great  man.  None  hold  him  in  higher  estimation  or  are  more 
ready  to  give  him  due  honour  than  we.  But  yet  we  think  it  per- 
fectly fair  to  use  his  assistance  against  high  church  principles,  al- 

•  This  expression  may  appear  strange  to  our  readers.  We  do  not  choose 
to  explain.  It  will  be  understood  as  it  is  intended  ;  and  will  furnisli  a  suf- 
ficiently intelligible  hint,  for  the  correction  of  modes  of  speech  very  una^ 
postolical, 

10 


76   Review  of  Bishop  liavenscrojVs  Vindication  and  Dejence. 

though  at  the  expense  of  his  consistency.  The  design  of  the  wri- 
ter, in  the  particular  part  of  the  work,  from  which  we  make  the 
following  extract,  is  to  confute  the  position  of  the  papists,  "that 
St.  Peter's  Primacy,  with  its  rights  and  prerogatives,  was  not  per- 
sonal but  derivable  to  his  successors."  In  accomplishing  this  pur- 
pose, among  other  things  he  announces  the  following  proposition. 

"The  Apostolical  office,  as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary; 
and  therefore  according  to  its  nature  and  design  not  successive  nor 
communicable  to  others  in  perpetual  descei:»^ence  from  them. 

"It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinary,  conferred  in  a 
special  manner,  designed  for  special  purposes,  discharged  by  special 
aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful  for  the  pro- 
pagation of  Christianity,  and  founding  of  Churches. 

"To  that  Office  it  was  requisite,  that  the  Person  should  have  an 
immediate  designation  and  commission  from  God;  such  as  St.  Paul 
so  often  doth  insist  upon  for  asserting  his  title  to  the  Office;  Paul  an 
Apostle,  not  from  men,  or  by  man — not  by  men,  saith  St.  Chrysostom 
this  is  a  property  of  the  Apostles. 

"It  was  requisite  that  an  Apostle  should  be  able  to  attest  con» 
cerning  our  Lord's  Resurrection  or  Ascension,  either  immediately 
as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident  consequence  as  St.  Paul.  Thus  St. 
Peter  implied,  at  the  choice  of  Matthias,   Wherefore  of  those  men 

xmhich  have  accompanied  with  ^ls must  one  be  ordained  to  he  a  wit' 

ness  zeilh  us  of  the  Resurrection;  and,  Am  I  not  (saith  St.  Paul) 
an  Apostle,  have  I  not  seen  the  Lord?  according  to  that  oi'  Annanias, 
the  God  of  our  Fathers,  hath  chosen  thee,  that  thou  shouldst  know  his 
will,  and  see  that  just  one,  and  shouldst  hear  the  voice  of  his  mouth;  for 
thou  shalt  bear  xmtness  unto  all  men,  of  what  thou  hast  seen  and  heard. 

"It  was  needful  also  that  an  Apostle  should  be  endowed  with  mi- 
raculous gifts  and  graces,  enabling  him  both  to  assure  his  authority, 
and  to  execute  his  Office;  wherefore  St.  Paul  calleth  these,  the 
inU7-ks  of  an  Apostle,  the  which  were  wrought  by  him  among  the  Corin- 
thians in  all  patience  (or  persevering)  in  signs,  and  wonders,  and 
mighty  deeds. 

"It  was  also,  in  St.  Chrysostom's  opinion,  proper  to  an  Apostle, 
that  he  should  be  able  according  to  his  discretion,  in  a  certain  and 
conspicuous  manner  to  impart  Spiritual  Gifts;  as  St.  Peter  and  St. 
John  did  at  Samaria;  which  to  do,  according  to  that  Father,  was  the 
peculiar  gift  and  privilege  of  the  Apostles. 

"It  was  also  a  privilege  of  an  Apostle,  by  virtue  of  his  commission 
from  Christ,  to  instruct  all  JVations  in  the  Doctrine  and  Law  of  Christ; 
He  had  right  and  warrant  to  exercise  his  function  every  where.  His 
charge  was  universal  and  indefinite;  the  whole  world  was  his  province; 
He  was  not  affixed  to  any  one  place,  nor  could  be  excluded  from 
any;  He  was  (as  St.  Cyril  calleth  him)  anOecumenicalJudge,  and  ati, 
Instructor  of  all  the  Subcelestial  Wo}-ld. 

"Apostles  also  did  govern  in  an  absolute  manner,  according  to 
discretion,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to  the  which 
they  might  upon  occasion  appeal,  and  affirm,  It  hath  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  us.  Whence  their  Writings  have  passed  for  in- 
spired, and  therefore  Canonical,  or  certain  Rules  of  Faith  ar.d 
Practice. 


Review  of  Bishop  Ilavenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence,   T7 

"It  did  belong  to  them  to  found  Churches,  to  constitute  Pastors, 
to  settle  orders,  to  correct  offences,  to  perform  all  such  Acts  ofSoV'^ 
ereign,  Spiritual  Power,  in  virtue  of  the  same  Divine  assistance,  ac' 
cording  to  the  authority  which  the  Lord  had  given  them  for  edification; 
as  we  see  practiced  by  St.  Paul. 

"In  fine,  the  Apostlcship  was  (as  St.  Chrysostom  telleth  us)  a  busi- 
ness fraught  with  ten  thousand  good  things,  both  greater  than  all  privi- . 
leges  of  grace,  and  comprehensive  of  them. 

*'Novv  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary  pri- 
vileges and  miraculous  powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church,  and  the  diffusion  of  Christianity,  against  the 
manifold  difficulties  and  disadvantages,  which  it  then  needs  must  en= 
counter,  was  not  designed  to  continue  by  derivation;  for  it  contain- 
eth  in  it  divers  things,  which  apparently  were  not  communicated, 
and  which  no  man  without  gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy  could 
challenge  to  himself. 

"Neither  did  the  Apostles  pretend  to  communicate  it;  they  did 
indeed  appoint  standing  Pastors  and  Teachers  in  each  church;  they 
did  assume  Fellow-labourers  and  Assistants  in  the  work  of  preach- 
ing and  Governance,  but  they  did  not  constitute  Apostles,  equal  to 
themselves  in  Authority,  Privileges,  or  Gifts.  For  zvho  knoweth  not 
(saith  St.  Jiusthi)  that  Principate  of  Apostleship  to  be  preferred  before 
any  EpiscopacTj?  and  the  Bishops  (saith  Bellarmine,  have  no  part  of  the 
true  Apostolical  Authority." 

This  reasoning  has  never  been,  and  never  can  be  answered.  The 
apostolical  office,  as  such,  ceased  at  the  death  of  the  apostles. 
They  then  could  have  no  successors  as  such.  And  when  they  died 
they  left  in  the  Church  only  those  religious  teachers,  who,  accord- 
ing to  bishop  R's  own  words,  were  called  indifferently  presbyters 
or  bishops.  Where  then  are  the  three  orders  of  ministers  of  the 
word,  of  whom  the  right  reverend  doctor  R.  speaks  in  terms  of  so 
much  confidence? 

But  we  have  not  yet  done  with  this  part  of  our  subject.  The 
bishop  of  N.  Carolina,  after  having,  as  he  supposed  determined  the 
point  that  there  were  three  orders  in  the  christian  ministry,  ob- 
serves, "The  question  however  has  (is)  yet  to  be  settled,  to  which 
of  the  three  orders  was  the  ordinary  power  committed?"  The 
apostles  had  it  beyond  a  doubt.  "That  it  was  not  conferred  upon 
the  Deacons  you  will  readily  admit — It  must  therefore  have  been 
committed  either  to  that  order  styled  indifferently,  Elders,  Presby- 
ters,* and  Bishops  in  scripture,  or  to  another  order,  distinguished 
by  possessing  this,  as  well  as  other  ordinary  apostolical  powers. — 
On  this  question  you  assert,  that  the  ordaining  power  was  transfer- 
red to  the  order  of  Presbyters.  This  assertion  I  deny  as  a  fact, 
and  I  support  my  denial  in  the  following  manner  from  the  scrip- 
tures."— pp.  39,  40. 

We  do  assert  as  a  fact  that  the  ordinary  power  was  committed  to 
those  who,  in  scripture,  are  styled  indifferently  presbyters  or  bi= 
*  These  are  the  bishop's  own  words,  Ehlevs,  Presbyters  !  Why  an  EWer  is 
a  Presbyter  .•  the  former  being  the  En^lith  for  TtpfC/Jl'Ifpog,  and  the  lat- 
ter  being  the  Greek  word  anglecized.  Is  it  possible  that  bishop  R.  is  so 
little  familiar  with  his  Greek  Testament  as  not  to  knoAV  this?  Or  did  he  ir. 
this  part  get  help  from  another,  and  in  his  h«rry  ovejl'^ok  tlje  nustakf'. 


'TH  Reviexv  of  Bishop  UavmscroJVs  Vindication  and  Dejtncc. 

shops.  But  to  whom  does  bishop  R.  assert  that  these  powers  were 
transferred?  He  has  no  scriptural  name  for  them.  He  dare  not 
affirm  that  they  were  Apostles.  Every  one  knows  they  were  not 
deacons.  The  terms  presbyter  and  bishop  were  apphed  indiffer- 
ently to  those  to  whom  he  denies  the  ordaining  power.  He  is 
obliged  to  describe  the  order  of  men  on  whom  the  very  being  of 
the  church  depends,  the  sole  depositaries  of  that  power  and  au- 
thority which  are  connected  with  all  man's  dearest  hopes,  by  a 
very  awkward  periphrasis — Hear  him! — "or  to  another  order,  dis- 
tinguished by  possessing  this  as  well  as  other  ordinary  apostolical 
powers!"  This  is  indeed  amazing.  We  are  to  believe,  then,  that 
a  being  of  infinite  wisdom,  in  making  a  revelation  of  his  will,  when 
the  organization  of  the  church  is  to  be  described,  employed  no 
term  to  designate  that  very  set  of  church  officers,  with  whom  he 
connected  every  thing  that  enables  us  to  verify  the  church,  to  rely 
on  the  promises  of  God,  or  hope  in  his  covenanted  mercy!  Really 
the  bishop  has  greatly  inflamed  our  desire  to  see  his  power  of  attor- 
ney. We  have  an  intense  curiosity  to  see  what  title  is  given  to 
him.  Does  it  purport  that  he  is  a  clergyman  "of  another  order," 
&c.? — But  we  ask  our  readers,  is  it  credible  that  a  system  of  gov- 
ernment should  be  framed,  without  giving  a  name  to  the  very  offi- 
cers who  should  possess  the  whole  power,  and  on  whom  the  very 
being  and  all  the  benefits  of  the  community  should  depend?  Was 
any  such  thing  ever  known  in  the  world  before  or  since? — But  we 
have  met  with  circumlocutions  like  this  before  now.  We  under- 
stand them.  High  churchmen  have  a  sufficiently  strong  desire  that 
the  people  should  think  them  Apostles.  But  even  the  men  among 
them,  who  boast  that  "they  blink  at  nothing"  are  rather  ashamed  to 
put  in  the  claim  directly,  and  therefore  beat  about  the  bush,  in  the 
manner  we  have  seen.  But  what,  we  pray,  are  ordinary  apostoli- 
cal powers?  The  very  nature  of  the  Apostles'  office,  as  such,  was 
extraordinary.  This,  Dr  Barrow  has  most  clearly  proved.  Take 
away  from  them  this  part  of  their  character,  and  they  differ  in  noth- 
ing from  the  men  who  were  styled  indifferently  presbyters  or  bishops. 
But  it  seems  the  bishop  of  N.  Carolina  can  name  the  persons,  although 
he  has  no  scriptural  term  by  which  to  designate  the  offices. 

••The  ordination  of  Timothy,  not  to  say  his  consecration,"  is  marked  by  St. 
Paul,  with  such  a  peculiar  character,  as  is  in  my  view,  utterly  incompatible 
with  the  parity  you  contend  for.  Authority  is  given  him  over  the  doctriiiej 
the  ministers  and  the  members  of  the  church  at  Ephesus — *'l  besought  thee 
to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  that  thou  mightest  charge  some,  that  they  teacl: 
no  other  doctrine."  1  Tim.  1—3,  from  the  11th  to  the  18th  ver.  tlie  Apos- 
tle refers  to  his  own  commission,  as  entrusted  with  the  Gospel,  and  at  the 
18th  verse  transfers  it  to  Timothy,  "This  charge  I  commit  unto  thee  son  Tim- 
othi/."  In  the  2d  chapter  he  gives  him  directions  as  to  the  qualification  of 
Bishops  and  Deacons,  and  at  the  14th  ver.  states  the  object  of  his  writing 

*  We  commend  the  reserve  of  the  right  reverend  author.  It  was  well  for 
bim  not  to  say  Consecration.  Because  the  term  induces  one  to  refer  to 
scripture;  and  there  we  search  in  vain  for  any  thing  like  consecration  to  the 
episcopal  office.  There  is  not  a  syllable  in  the  word  of  God  which  intimates 
any  thing  like  different  kinds  of  ordination  for  ministers  of  different  orders. 


llevicw  of  Bishup  UaveiiSLvojVs  Vindication  and  Defence,    f  S 

to  him,  in  such  wise  as  clearly  designates  his  supreme  authority  in  tha''; 
church. — "These  things  write  I  unto  thee  hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly, 
but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou  mayest  know  hoiv  thou  oughtest  to  behave  thyself 
in  the  church  of  God."  An  expression  which  cannot  be  construed  of  per- 
sonal  deportment  when  engaged  in  the  public  duties  of  Religion,  and  must 
therefore  refer  to  the  exercise  of  iiis  Episcopal  authority  over  the  church. 
In  the  5th  chap,  accordingly,  Timothy  is  directed  "Rebuke  not  an  Elder, 
but  entreat  him  as  a  father"  ver.  1 — "Against  an  Elder  receive  not  an  accu- 
sation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,"  ver.  19.  His  authority  over  the 
members  generally  is  evinced  by  the  whole  chapter,  particularly  by  ver.  20 
— "Them  that  sin  rebuke  before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear."  And  that 
the  power  to  ordain  was  committed  to  him  singly  is  clear  from  both  the 
Epistles,  particularly  1  Tim.  5 — 22,  and  2  Tim.  2 — 2,  "Lay  hands  suddenly 
on  no  man" — "The  things  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among  many  witnesses,  the 
same  commit  thou  to  faitliful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  others  also.'  " 
—p.  40. 

"This  view  of  the  subject,  as  the  plain  scriptural  view  of  it,  is  confirmed 
by  the  Epistle  of  this  same  Apostle  to  Titus,  "For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain 
Elders  in  every  city,  as  /  had  appointed  thee,"  chap.  1 — 5.  Directions  are 
then  given  him  as  to  the  qualifications  of  those  to  be  ordained,  and  as  to 
his  general  duty  as  a  governor  of  the  church,  of  the  same  character  as  those 
given  to  Timothy,  with  this  particular  charge,  *A  man  that  is  an  heretic, 
after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  reject.*  " — p.  41. 

So  then  Timothy  and  Titus  were  of  that  nameless  order  of  meiis 
who  with  the  ordaining  power,  possessed  the  other  ordinary  apos- 
tolical powers.  It  deserves  remark,  however,  that  before  the 
bishop  gets  through  the  41st  page  he  forgets  his  cautious,  circumla- 
cutary  mode  of  speaking,  and  tells  us  plainly,  "that  even  in  the 
lifetime  of  the  Apostles,  the  episcopal  office  was  instituted  in  the 
church,  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  as  a  distinct  order  of  ministers." 
We  must  suppose  then  that  the  episcopal  office  was  different  from 
the  office  held  by  bishops;  for  according  to  our  author's  own  show- 
ing, the  term  bishop  was  used  indiscriminately  with  the  term  elder 
or  presbyter.  The  bishop's  office  then  was  the  elder's  office;  and 
the  Episcopal  office  was  something  else.  This  is  strange  enough. 
But  it  was  all  done  to  accommodate  the  modesty  of  diocesan  bishops; 
•who  were  designed  to  be  successors  of  the  Apostles,  possessing  their 
ordinary  powers  and  honours,  but  yet  who  could  never  bring  them- 
selves to  take  their  names'.  Nevertheless  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
of  that  other  order  who  are  now  called  bishops.  But  really  we  do 
not  see  how  the  prelate  of  North  Carolina  can  free  himself  from  the 
charge  of  having  proved  that  there  were  four  orders  in  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  1 .  Apostles.  2.  '■'■Another  order.'"  3.  Presbyters  or 
bishops.  4.  Deacons.  Either  he  must  say  that  the  other  order  was 
the  apostolic,  or  he  must  acknowledge  that  his  church  wants  one  of 
the  four.  But  we  leave  him  to  settle  this  point  as  he  can.  He  in- 
sists on  it  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  bishops  in  his  sense  of  the 
term,  and  labours  hard  to  prove  his  position.  Let  us  see  how  he 
manages  the  case. 

1.  "The  ordination  of  Timothy  is  marked  with  such  a  peculiar 
character  as  is  utterly  incompatible  with  ministerial  parity."  But 
the  good  gentleman  does  not  think  fit  to  tell  us  how  this  case  is. — . 
We  hear  not  a  word  about  Timothy's  ordination  in  any  thing  that 
follows.     And  if  we  turn  to  the  account  which  the  scripture  give? 


80    Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft-s  Vindkaiion  and  Defence^ 

ti3,  we  find  nothing  at  all  extraordinary,  nothing  marked,  or  pecu- 
liar in  the  transaction.  Timothy  was  ordained  with  ((isla)  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  Just  such  an  ordination 
as  takes  place  a  hundred  times  a  year  in  the  various  Presbyterian 
and  Congregational  churches  in  this  country. 

2.  "Authority  is  given  to  Timothy  over  the  doctrine,  the  minis- 
ters, and  the  members  of  the  church  at  Ephesus.  'I  besought 
thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  that  thou  raightest  charge  some  that 
they  teach  no  other  doctrine.'  1  Tim.  i,  3."  We  take  it  for 
granted  that  bishop  K.  never  for  a  moment  supposed  that  this  en- 
treaty that  Timothy  should  abide  still  at  Ephesus  was  his  ordina- 
tion; (not  to  say  consecration)  as  bishop  of  the  church  in  that  place. 
And  we  ask  any  one  who  understands  the  force  of  words,  to 
decide  whether  the  terms  used  by  the  Apostle  suit  the  hypothesis 
that  Timothy  sustained  the  episcopal  office  among  the  Ephesian  be- 
lievers. If  so  why  should  Paul  beseech  him  to  remain  at  Ephesus? 
Where  should  a  bishop  be,  but  in  his  diocese?  Is  it  to  be  admitted 
for  a  moment,  that  such  a  man  as  Timothy  would  think  of  leaving 
the  people  committed  to  his  care?  Surely  me  i  are  hard  run  for 
evidence  that  Timothy  held  the  Episcopal  office  at  Ephesus,  when 
they  appeal  to  this  passage  for  proof.  But  let  us  compare  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  here,  with  the  record  found  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles.  When  Paul  was  going  to  Macedonia  (1  Tim.  i,  3,) 
he  left  Timothy  at  Ephesus.  This  journey  is  mentioned  Acts  xx,  2. 
But  in  a  few  months  we  find  that  Timothy  is  Paul's  travelling  com- 
panion. Does  this  allow  us  to  suppose  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of 
Ephesus?  The  plain  state  of  the  case  is  this.  Paul  made  a  hurried 
departure  from  Ephesus,  on  account  of  the  disturbance  raised  by 
Demetrius  the  silversmith.  The  church  there  was  in  a  disturbed 
state,  and  was  not  sufficiently  settled  in  all  its  parts.  Timothy 
wished  to  accompany  bis  spiritual  father;  but  Paul  having  for  at 
least  seven  years,  experienced  the  fidelity  and  zeal  of  Timothy,  en- 
treated him  to  stay  for  a  time  at  Ephesus  to  assist  in  maintaining 
the  doctrine  which  had  been  taught  by  the  Apostle,  against  false 
teachers,  and  to  complete  the  organization  of  the  church.  But  as 
it  is  probable  that  the  Apostle  had  not  time  fully  to  charge  Timothy 
in  relation  to  the  important  functions  which  he  was  called  to  dis- 
charge; therefore  very  shortly  after  his  departure,  he  wrote 
this  Epistle,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  full  instruction  as  to  his 
duty.  It  was  then,  unquestional)ly,  a  temporary  service  which 
Timothy  was  called  on  to  discharge. 

The  bishop  proceeds,  "from  the  1 1th  to  the  18th  verse,  the  Apos- 
tle refers  to  his  own  commission,  as  entrusted  with  the  gospel,  and 
at  the  18th  verse,  entrusts  it  to  Timothy.  'This  charge  I  commit 
U7ito  thee  son  Timothy.''  "  The  bishop  is  most  evidently  mislead  here 
by  the  usage  of  the  English  word  charge;  as  though  it  were  an  office 
committed;  but  what  will  be  his  surprise  when  he  comes  to  look  at 
his  Greek  Testament  and  finds  there  the  word  TtapayytXLa?  This 
word  occurs  only  five  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  every 
instance  in  the  sense  of  commandment,  order,  either  in  the  way' 
of  prohibition  cr  precept,  see  Acts  y,  28.  xvi,  21.  I  Thes?.  iv.  2v 


Jieview  of  Bishop  Raven$crqft*s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence,  Si 

I  Tim.  i,  5,  18.  In  this  last  passage  it  means  a  direction  or  prc= 
cept  respecting  the  discharge  of  Timothy's  duty.  The  sense  is  this, 
1  left  you  for  the  time,  in  my  place  in  Ephesus,  that  you  may  charge 
certain  persons  (7t(Tf.  verse  3)  not  to  teach  doctrine  contrary  to 
mine;  and  I  commend  this  direction  to  your  attention.  I  entrust  you 
with  the  execution  of  this  commandment.  There  is  no  ordination 
here,  no  episcopacy. 

"In  the  second  chapter,  (continues  our  prelate)  he  gives  him  di= 
rections  as  to  the  qualifications  of  Bishops  and  Deacons."  There 
is  a  mistake  here.  The  second  chapter  contams  directions  in  re- 
lation to  public  worship.  The  Apostle  prescribes  to  Timothy  here, 
what  he  thought  necessary  concerning  the  subjects  of  prayer;  and 
we  just  observe  in  passing,  that  we  have  abundant  evidence  that 
there  was  no  liturgy  in  use  in  the  church  at  Ephesus,  otherwise 
these  directions  would  have  been  quite  superfluous. — In  the  third 
chapter  we  have  a  statement  of  the  qualifications  of  bishops  and  dea- 
cons.  But  what  inference  at  all  advantageous  to  his  cause,  bishop 
R.  can  derive  from  this  statement  we  are  utterly  unable  to  see. — 
Suppose  we  admit  that  Timothy  had  full  power  to  ordain  (of  himself) 
bishops  and  deacons  in  the  church  at  Ephesus,  nothing  follows  more 
than  Presbytei'ians  have  admitted  a  hundred  times.  They  do  not 
deny  the  fact.  But  the  conclusion  derived  from  it,  that  therefore 
Timothy  was  prelate  of  Ephesus.  We  leave  this  then  just  here 
for  the  present,  intending  hereafter  to  show  what  Timothy  really 
was. 

The  14th  verse  of  this  chapter  is  thought  by  the  author  under 
review,  to  contain  decisive  evidence  that  Timothy  had  supreme  au- 
thority in  the  church  at  Ephesus.  "These  things  write  1  unto  thee 
hoping  to  come  unto  thee  shortly,  but  if  I  tarry  long,  that  thou 
mayest  know  how  to  behave  thyself  in  the  church  of  God."  This 
it  is  said  must  refer  to  the  exercise  of  Episcopal  authority.  But 
why  Episcopal  authority?  The  words  will  suit  an  evangelist  or  a 
presbyter  just  as  well  as  a  bishop.  How  can  a  man  bring  himself 
to  draw  particular  conclusions  from  general  terms  in  this  way?— 
But  bishop  R.  connects  this  passage  with  the  first  verse  of  the  fifth 
chapter,  as  evidence  of  his  facts,  "Rebuke  not  an  Elder,  but  entreat 
him  as  a  father."  It  is  evident  that  the  bishop  did  not  look  at  the 
context  here,  or  he  could  not  have  supposed  that  in  this  case  there 
was  implied  any  exercise  of  episcopal  authority:  for  elder  in  the 
text  means  an  aged  man.  Surely  a  presbyter  may  exercise  church 
discipline  as  well  as  a  bishop. 

We  pass  on.  "Against  an  Elder  receive  not  an  accusation,  but 
before  two  or  three  witnesses,  verse  19."  Here  is  thought  to  be 
dicisive  evidence  of  Episcopal  authority,  for  in  this  case  the  term 
Elder  is  admitted  to  be  an  officer  in  the  church,  such  an  one  as  in 
the  3d  chapter  is  called  a  bishop.  But  if  one  will  look  at  the  whole 
case,  he  will  find  it  much  too  slender  as  a  foundation  for  his  hope 
of  covenanted  mercy.  By  comparing  the  19th  and  20th  chapters 
of  Acts  with  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  recollecting  that  it 
was  not  the  custom  of  Paul  or  any  of  the  Apostles  to  ordain  novices 
(new  converts)  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  we  shall  f.nd  that  the 


82  Review  of  Bishop  RavenscrojVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

case  was  thus.  Ephesus  was  at  that  perioci  a  great  city,  and  exert- 
ed of  course  great  influence  on  the  whole  of  Asia  Minor.  It  was 
very  important  that  the  teachers  of  rehgion  there  should  be  well 
tried  and  able  men.  During  the  Apostle's  abode  with  the  Ephe- 
sians,  he  appears  not  to  have  appointed  any  presbyters  or  bishops, 
waiting  no  doubt  to  find  proper  men  and  give  them  suitable  train- 
ing. But  as  his  abode  there  was  abruptly  terminated,  he  left 
Timothy  as  we  have  before  seen,  to  take  his  place  for  a  time  and 
complete  his  work.  It  would  seem  that  the  whole  business  of  or- 
ganizing the  church  was  to  be  accomplished,  and  Timothy  receives 
this  letter  from  Paul,  not  merely  for  the  purpose  of  individual  in- 
struction but  for  the  sake  of  giving  to  others  the  rule  by  which  a 
church  is  to  be  governed.  For  this  purpose  he  begins  with  assert- 
ing his  Apostolical  office,  as  was  his  custom  generally  in  his  epistles; 
and  then  repeats  a  charge  before  given  respecting  false  teachers, 
who  had  it  seems  visited  Ephesus,  the  names  of  two  of  whom,  he 
mentions.  In  the  second  chapter,  he  gives  directions  respecting 
the  prayers  of  the  church;  and  towards  the  close  of  it  forbids  the 
women  to  officiate  as  public  teachers.  In  the  third  chapter,  we 
find  instructions  respecting  the  officers  of  the  church.  1.  The 
teachers,  called  Bishops  or  Presbyters.  2.  The  Deacons.  To- 
wards the  close  of  this  chapter,  the  Apostle  states  the  fundamental 
truth  of  the  gospel  system, — *  The  pillar  and  ground  of  the  Gospel  is 
the  Divine  Nature  of  Jesus  Christ. 

This  leads  to  a  prediction  of  a  lamentable  departure  from  the 
truth  by  religious  teachers  at  some  future  time.  The  apostle  then 
(iv,  6.)  returns  to  the  fundamental  truth  stated  iii,  16,  and  insists 
that  it  should  be  urged  with  all  diligence.  In  iv,  9,  he  returns  to 
the  same  important  doctrine,  and  insists  that  it  be  faithfully  taught. 
After  adding  some  particular  exhortations  to  Timothy,  he  proceeds 
in  the  5th  Chapter  to  speak  of  the  right  ordering  of  the  church  in 
regard  to  the  support  of  widows,  the  stipends  of  Presbyters,  the 
exercise  of  discipline  in  regard  to  Elders  and  others;  and  various 

*  We  agree  with  those  critical  editors  of  the  New  Testament,  who  make 
the  third  chapter  close  at  the  end  of  the  15th  verse,  or  at  any  rate  place  a  pe- 
riod here.  The  words  translated,  ^i/Zar  and  ground  of  the  truth,  are  not  to 
be  referred  to  the  clmrch  :  OlVAX)^  is  literaHy  a  pillar ;  and  metaphorically 
it  is  that  particularly  on  which  any  thing  rests,  a  fundamental  doctrine  :-■=- 
iopOUQ[l(X  is  a  basis,  a  foundation  ;  and  in  its  metaphorical  sense  is  synony- 
mous with  the  former  word.  '  A/lj^S'tt'ttg  here  is  doubtless  the  gospel,  as  a 
system  of  truth.  But  in  what  sense  is  the  church  the  pillar,  or  the  foundation 
of  the  gospel?  If  it  were  affirmed  that  the  gospel  is  the  foundation  of  the 
church,  we  could  understand  the  metaphor  perfectly.  The  truth  tiiat  Jesus 
is  the  Christ  the  son  of  the  living  God,  according  to  Peter's  confession,  is  the 
rock  on  which  the  church  is  built:  it  is  tlie  great  fundamental  truth.  But  it 
13  harsh  and  extravagant  to  say  that  the  church  is  the  basis  or  support  of  the 
gospel.  Accordingly  we  read  the  passage  before  us  thus—"  The  fundamen- 
tal truth  of  the  gospel— and  confessedly  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness- 
is,  God  was  manifested  in  the  flesh,  justified  by  the  spirit,  seen  by  angels,  be- 
lieved on  by  the  world,  (Gentiles)  received  into  glory:  (but  the  spirit  express- 
ly saith  that  in  the  last  time  some  shall  depart  from  the  faith,"  &c.— continu- 
ing the  parenthesis  to  the  close  of  the  fifth  verse ;  and  with  the  sixth  resum- 
ing the  subject  of  the  16th  verse  of  the  3d  chapter. 


Retiew  of  Bishop  RavenscrojL^s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence.  83 

particular  matters  concerning  Timothy  personally.     From  these 
the  Apostle  proceeds  in  the  Gth  Chapter  to  other  points  in  the  ar- 
rangements  and  regulations  of  the  church,  such  as  the  duty  of  ser- 
vants who  belonged  to  the  church,  whether  their  masters  were  be- 
lievers or  unbelievers:  and  with  this  he  severely  condemns  any 
who  might  teach  any  other  doctrine.     With  particular  exhortations 
to  Timothy  he  mingles  other  general  admonitions  to  the  end  of  the 
epistle.     Now  we  ask  any  judicious  reader  to  determine  whether 
the  whole  epistle,  taken  in  all  its  connexions,  does  not  clearly  im- 
ply  this,  that  Timothy  was  left  as  Paul's  assistant  at  Ephesus  to  or- 
ganize a  church,  and  make  under  the  instructions  of  the  Apostle 
the  necessary  regulations  there;  and  whether  this  epistle  was  not 
intended  for  the  use  of  the  church  of  that  place,  and  for  all  other 
churches  and  ministers  in  all  ages,  as  well  as  for  Timothy.     And 
does  not  the  whole  history  of  the  case  suit  the  Presbyterian  hypo- 
thesis much  better  than  the  Episcopal?     The  former  is  this;  that 
Timothy  was  an  Evangelist;  that  is  a  minister  of  religion  furnished 
with  extraordinary  powers  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  the  Apostles 
in  planting  the  gospel,  and  completing  the  organization  of  churches; 
who  when  he  had  finished  the  work  in  one  place,  went  to  another. 
The  latter  is,   that  Timothy   was   appointed  diocesan   bishop  of 
Ephesus,  with  Presbyters  under  his  episcopal  authority.     In  set- 
tling this  question,  let  the  reader  turn  again  to  Acts  xx,  17 — 28,^ 
and  read  the  charge  given  by  Paul  to  the  elders  or  bishops  of 
Ephesus.     It  is  beyond  a  doubt  that  when  Paul  sent  to  Miletus  for 
the  Presbyters  of  the  church,  Timothy,  instead  of  being  in  the 
bishopric  which  has  been  so  kindly  given  to  him,  was  Paul's  trav- 
elling companion.     This  whole  charge  then  is  given  to  these  men  in 
presence  of  their  supposed  bishop.     Paul  charges  them  to  take  heed 
to  that  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Spirit  had  made  them  bishops,  to 
govern  it  well,  &c.     In  a  word  he  addresses  them  just  as  though 
the  whole  business  of  teaching.and  governing  belonged  to  them  ;  he 
speaks  of  the  church  as  committed  to  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  says 
not  a  word;  gives  not  a  single  hint  of  any  duty  to  be  performed  to 
their  diocesan  Timothy,  of  any  submission  to  his  authority?  In  page 
73,  bishop  R.  says  that  "St.  Paul  knew  too  vvell  what  belonged  to 
clerical  propriety,  to  have  addressed  an  epistle  to  any  church  col- 
lectively, that  was  under  the  care  of  its  own  bishop  !"     But  where 
was  his  clerical  propriety  in  this  case?     Before  the  face  of  the  bish- 
op of  Ephesus  to  speak  to  his  Presbyters  as  though  the  whole  au- 
thority of  the  church  were  in  their  hands! — to  address  them  as  if 
all  the  interests  of  that  church  were  entrusted  to  their  care.     What 
a  flagrant  breach  of  clerical  propriety.     The  truth  is  on  the  pres- 
byterian  hypothesis,  the  whole  affair  nppears  perfectly  easy  and 
natural,  and  every  part  of  the  epistle  is  congruous  with  the  history 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles:  but  on  the   episcopal  hypothesis  man}-- 
things  are  strained  and  detorted.     The  prescriptions  then  respect- 
ing ordination,  and  discipline  were  not  given  to  Timothy  as  bishop, 
but  through  him  as  an  evangelist  for  the  benefit  of  all  who  might 
be  employed  in  the  government  of  the  church.     They,  every  one 
of  them,  are  iust  as  suitable  to  a  Presbyterian  minister,  as  to  an 
11 


Si  Jieview  of  Binhop  RavenscrojVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Episcopalian.  And  there  is  nothing  in  their  being  addressed  singly 
to  Timothy,  when  we  recollect  that  he  had  been  temporarily  left 
by  Paul  at  Ephesus  for  the  organization  of  the  church.  It  is  also 
reasonable  to  believe  that  Timothy  hastened  too  much  to  do  his 
work,  that  he  might  rejoin  his  beloved  friend  the  Apostle;  and  that 
this  was  the  reason  why  Paul,  though  he  was  anxious  to  pursue 
bis  journey  to  Jerusalem,  stopped  at  Miletus  and  sent  for  the  pres- 
byters of  the  church  of  Ephesus,  that  he  might  fully  instruct  them, 
and  give  them  a  suitable  charge.  Had  Paul  ordained  these  men 
during  his  abode  among  them,  he  no  doubt  would  have  given  all 
these  charges  before.  But  admitting  that  their  ordination  was  per- 
formed by  Timothy,  we  can  easily  see  why  Paul  in  his  solicitude 
would  even  delay  his  journey,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  these  pres- 
byters, and  giving  them  charges  and  instructions,  of  which  we  have 
a  specimen  in  the  20th  Chap,  of  Acts.  If  Timothy  then  was  or- 
dained bishop  of  Ephesus,  he  was  a  bishop  without  presbyters  un- 
til he  made  them  himself.  And  this  is  a  new  case  in  the  history  of 
the  hierarchy.  A  bishop  in  pariibus  infideUum,  has  been  heard 
of  before  now;  but  a  diocesan  bishop  without  clergy  under  him  is 
a  perfect  anomaly  in  high  church. 

But  let  us  now  advert  to  the  account  given  us  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament of  the  Life  of  Timothy,  and  see  whether  it  conforms  to  the 
notion  of  his  being  a  diocesan  bishop  or  not.  It  ought  to  be  re- 
membered that  according  to  the  hypothesis  of  our  author,  there 
were  seven  such  bishops  at  no  great  distance  from  each  other, 
namely,  the  bishops  of  Ephesus,  of  Smyrna,  Pergamos,  Thyatira, 
Sordis,  Philadelphia  and  Laodicea.  Of  these,  five  bishoprics  lay 
within  a  territory  but  little  if  any  larger,  than  one  of  the  counties 
in  the  State  of  North  Carolina.  Bishops  were  more  numerous  in 
the  ancient  church  than  among  modern  hierarchists.  But  not  now 
to  dwell  on  this  subject:  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Well, 
his  business  was  to  preach  the  word,  and  govern  his  church.  But 
instead  of  doing  this,  we  find  him  proceeding  in  the  following  man- 
ner. After  Paul  had  taken  him  as  a  companion,  he  went  from 
Lystra  to  Phrygia  and  Galatia;  thence  through  Mysia  to  Troas. 
From  Troas  he  went  to  Macedonia,  Acts  xvii,  1,  and  visited 
Samothracia,  Neapolis,  Philippi,  Amphipolis,  Apollonia,  Thessaloni- 
ca.  From  Thessalonrca  he  journeyed  to  Berea,  A.  D.  63;  thence 
to  Athens;  and  thence  to  Thessalonica,  A.  D.  54,  thence  through 
Macedonia  to  Corinth,  (Acts  xviii,  6.)  After  staying  near  two 
years  at  Corinth,  he  accompanied  Paul  to  Ephesus,  and  probably 
from  that  place  to  Jerusalem  (A.  D,  56.)  From  thence  he  went 
through  Phrygia  and  Galatia  again  to  Ephesus,  (A.  D.  57.)  From 
Ephesus  he  was  sent  to  Corinth,  (A,  D.  59)  through  Macedonia. 
He  returned  from  Corinth  to  Ephesus  (in  the  year  60.)  He  is 
here  left  by  Paul  for  a  time,  and  in  three  or  four  months  goes  to 
him  into  Macedonia;  whence  he  accompanies  Paul  on  his  journey  to 
Jerusalem.  We  do  not  know  ivhat  became  of  him,  after  this;  but 
probably  he  accompanied  Paul  in  his  journey.  However  this  may 
be,  we  know  that  he  was  with  the  Apostle  at  Rome,  when  he 
wrote  to  the  Philippians,  to  the  Colossians,  and  to  Philemon.  And 
also  that  he  was  present  when  the  Apostle  wrote  his  epistle  to  the 


Seviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence.  85 

Hebrews.  After  this,  we  hear  nothing  more  of  him  in  the  New 
Testament. 

The  accounts  given  by  the  Fathers  of  Timothy,  afford  no  infor* 
mation  to  be  relied  on  by  an  impartial  judge  of  historical  testimo- 
ny. The  passage  quoted  from  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  if  we  ad- 
mit them  to  be  genuine,  proves  nothing  but  that  Timothy  was 
one  of  the  teachers  of  the  Church  in  Ephesus  in  the  time  of  the 
Apostles. — And  this  no  reader  of  the  New  Testament  ever  for  a 
moment  thought  of  doubting.* 

Eusebeus  only  says  "  it  is  reported"!  that  Timothy  was  ap= 
pointed  by  Paul  first  bishop  of  the  Ephesians.  Now  Eusebius 
lived  more  than  three  hundred  years  after  the  Christian  iEra;  at  a 
time  when  the  church  was  rising  in  worldly  favour;  after  bishops 
had  begun  to  assume  great  things  to  themselves;  and  when  the  ef- 
fort was  made  to  find  evidence  to  support  these  claims.  It  is  easy^ 
for  us  to  form  a  judgment  of  the  reliance  to  be  placed  on  reports  of 
this  kind  by  adverting  to  the  circumstances  of  our  own  country.  It 
is  but  little  more  than  two  hundred  years  since  the  first  permanent 
European  settlements  were  made  in  North  America.  Now  suppose 
that  a  historian  of  the  present  day,  should,  among  a  number  of  events 
which  he  is  enabled  to  authenticate  by  proper  historical  evidences 
mention  some  of  the  traditions  which  are   in  circulation  in  the 

*  The  words  used  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  which  goes  under  the 
name  of  Ignatius  are  the  following.     "I?^a  £V  X^/ipO)  E^EClGiV  EVpi^Ca 

TQv  ;^pi(T7(ava)^',  61  xai  toig  d7toGl6?uoi<;  navloJe  cvvYiaavy  kv 
Svvdfjsi  Iriaov  XptcrJa,  nav?La,  Vzs  dwyj,  Tifw^ici  la  nialoWa. 

I  wish  that  I  may  be  found  in  the  lot  of  the  Ephesian  Christians.who  always 
conversed  with  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ,  Paul,  John  and  the  most  faith' 
ful  Timothy."  If  this  proves  any  thing  more  than  that  Timothy  was  a  re\U 
gious  teacher  amoiig  the  Ephesians,  it  proves  that  he  was  an  Apostle.  But 
who  pretends  this  ?  It  ought  to  be  stated  that  this  Testimony  is  taken  from 
the  larger  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  almost  universally,  by  learned  Episco= 
palians,  are  acknowledged  to  have  been  interpolated,  and  very  greatly  cor- 
rupted. And  by  comparing  the  larger  and  smaller  Epistles,  it  will  be  found 
that  this  passage  is  forged.  Bishop  R.  is  welcome  to  all  the  evidence  here 
afforded  for  his  hypothesis. 

I  The  passage  from  Eusebius  is  in  these  words,  TlflO^SOg  ys  ^nv  Ivi^ 

£V  E4>£cro  Ttapoixiag  hlopulai  npoylog  Iviv  sniciK07t}\v  ki?iYij(evau 

Timothy  is  nEPORTED  to  have  received  first  the  oversight  of  the  parish^ 
(church)  in  Ephesus,  Lib.  iii.  chap.  4.  Now  Eusebius  died  in  the  year  340j, 
that  is  nearly  tiiree  hundred  years  after  the  event  of  which  he  records  the 
tradition.  And  this  is  the  first  mention  made  of  the  Episcopate  of  Timothy 
in  any  of  the  genuine  writings  of  the  fathers.  It  is  true  that  the  apostolical 
constitutions  are  referred  to  by  episcopal  writers  ;  but  they  are  known  not 
to  be  genuine  ;  and  the  date  of  their  composition  is  entirely  uncertain.  The 
other  authorities  referred  to  are  still  more  remote.  Chrysostom  died  in  the 
beginning  of  the  5th  century.  The  council  of  Chalcedon  was  held  in  the 
Tiiddle  of  that  century,  and  Theodoret  died  ten  years  afterwards.  Photius 
Inishedhis  course  in  891,  and  the  author  quoted  by  him  is  not  named,  so 
that  nobody  knows  who  he  was  or  when  he  lived. 

These  are  the  authorities  relied  on  by  the  prelatists  in  support  of  the  epis- 
copal character  of  Timothy.  The  i-eader  can  see  at  once  the  probability 
that  they  all  originated  from  the  tradition  of  Eusebius.  Can  such  tradition 
weigh  a  feather  against  the  plain  account  of  scripture  ? 


8(>  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt's  Vindication  and  Dejence. 

country  respecting  events  which  happened  during  the  first  forty  or 
fifty  years  after  our  forefathers  came  to  this  land;  and  suppose  far- 
ther, that  these  traditional  stories  should  twenty  centuries  hence  be- 
come a  matter  of  controversy,  who  would  risk  his  estate  on  the  tes- 
timony of  that  historian  who  thus  reported  the  floating  traditions  of 
his  country?  What  would  be  thought  of  the  legislator  who  would 
make  these  traditions  the  foundation  of  a  law  respecting  titles? 
This  is  a  just  statement  of  the  value  of  ecclesiastical  traditions. — 
Nay  they  ought  to  be  received  with  an  additional  abatement:  be- 
cause before  the  time  when  they  were  committed  to  writing,  the 
spirit  of  ecclesiastical  ambition  had  been  wakened  up  among  the  fa-> 
thers.  Blost  of  them  wished^  to  exalt  the  dignity  and  increase  the 
the  power  of  the  diocesan  bishops,  and  therefore  were  ready  to  re- 
cord every  tradition  which  served  this  purpose. 

It  deserves  to  be  remarked,  too,  that  Episcopalian  writers  can  be 
brought  to  no  agreement  as  to  the  real  character  of  Timothy's  au- 
thority. Eusebius  only  makes  him  bishop  of  the  parish  in  Ephesus. 
But  Chrysostom  would  have  us  believe  that  he  was  archbishop  of 
Asia  Minor.  Theodoret  is  of  the  same  opinion.  Hammond  and 
others  among  the  moderns  fight  on  the  same  side.  But  others  again 
vehemently  oppose  this  notion,  and  make  Timothy  no  more  than  a 
diocesan  bishop.  Let  the  prelatists  agree  among  themselves  what 
office  Timothy  sustained,  before  they  assault  us  in  the  unmerciful 
way  of  the  bishop  of  North  Carolina. 

If  we  may  turn  once  more  to  scripture,  we  shall  see  how  much 
it  differs  from  the  prelatists  of  all  ages.  It  is  held  b}  Episcopalians 
that  Epaphroditus  was  bishop  of  Philippi;  and  we  have  seen  the 
remark  made  with  peculiar  complacency,  that  Paul  calls  him  the 
Apostle  of  the  Philippians;  (see  chap,  ii,  25,  in  which  it  is  said  that 
djtOCfJoTLOV  ought  not  to  be  rendered  messenger  as  it  is  in  our  trans- 
lation, but  apostle,)  and  this  for  the  sake  of  showing  that  sometimes 
a  bishop  is  called  an  Apostle.  Here  now  is  a  remarkable  instance 
of  Paul's  disregard  of  what  bishop  K.  calls  clerical  propriety.  In 
answer  to  our  inquiry,  where  was  the  bishop  of  Rome,  of  Corinth, 
&c.  when  the  Apostle  wrote  his  letters  to  them,  he  admits  that  these 
churches  had  no  bishops  at  that  period;  otherwise  Paul  would  not 
by  any  means  have  addressed  the  churches  at  large.  He  would 
have  sent  his  letter  to  the  bishop! — But  here  is  a  letter  addressed  to 
the  church  of  Philippi,  and  its  officers,  and  sent  by  the  hands  of 
their  bishop.  All  the  instructions  and  charges  are  given  to  tjie 
church  at  large,  and  not  a  word  said  about  the  authority  of  their  dio- 
cesan! Really  if  bishop  R.  had  lived  in  the  times  of  the  Apostle, 
we  fear  that  Paul  would  have  fared  about  as  bad  as  our  Reviewer 
has  done  !     (See  page  73.) 

But  we  have  not  stated  the  worst  of  the  case.  The  letter  to 
the  Philippians  was  written  while  Paul  was  prisoner  at  Rome  ;  at 
least  four  years  ftfter  bishop  R.  supposes  that  Timotliy  was  ordain- 
ed (not  to  say  consecrated)  bishop  of  Ephesus.  Well ;  the  Apostle 
not  only  commits  the  flagrant  breach  of  clerical  decorum  just  ad- 
verted to  :  but  he  promises  to  send  the  bishop  of  Ephesus  (as  soon 
as  he  well  cau;)  to  the  diocese  of  the  bishop  of  Philippi.  th^t  he 


lleview  of  Bishop  llavenscrojt^s  Vindication  and  Defence,  8f 

might  know  their  affairs  !  What  does  the  bishop  of  North  Carolina 
think  of  this  ?  How  will  he  reconcile  it  with  clerical  propriety  ? 
We  fear  that  it  will  gravel  him  almost  as  sorely,  as  some  of  the 
doctrinal  passages  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  But  is  it  at  all  to 
be  believed  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus  ? 

The  question  then  is,  what  office  did  he  sustain  ?  We  reply 
that  he  was  an  Evangelist.  But  hear  what  bishop  R.  says  on  this 
subject. 

"Equally  unwarranted  by  scripture  and  ecclesiastical  history  is  the  usual 
subterfuge  resorted  to  by  contenders  for  parity  in  tlie  christian  ministry} 
against  the  episcopal  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus.  They  were  EvangC' 
lists  it  is  said,  and  not  Bishops — and  as  Evangelists  only,  were  cloathed  with 
a  special  power  to  ordain  and  govern  in  the  church." 

"This,  sir,  also,  is  mere  assertion — and  you  are  required  to  show,  either 
from  scripture  or  the  records  of  antiquity,  that  there  was  a  distinct  order 
of  ministers  in  the  church  styled  Evangelists;  and  as  such  possessed  of  au» 
Ihority  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  the  order  either  of  Deacons  or  Pres» 
byters — unless  you  can  do  this,  you  must  be  aware  sir,  that  the  reasoning 
founded  on  this  assertion,  and  the  conclusions  drawn  from  it,  are  equally 
gratuitous  with  the  assertion  itself;  and  very  wonderful  indeed  it  would  be, 
that  an  office,  which  from  the  very  nature  of  things,  must  run  parallel  with 
the  gospel,  so  long  as  there  was  a  heathen  land  into  which  to  carry  its 
joyful  sound,  should  have  been  discontinued  in  the  church.  But  as  the 
•work  of  an  Evangelist  cannot  cease,  so  long  as  the  glad  tiding*  of  the  gos- 
pel of  Christ  are  unheard  by  any  nation,  kindred,  tongue  or  people,  so 
neither  can  the  office.  Every  Deacon,  Presbyter  or  Bishop,  proclaiming 
these  glad  tidings  to  such,  is  thereby,  and  not  in  virtue  of  any  official  design 
nation,  an  Evangelist,  in  the  proper  scriptural  and  only  just  meaning  of  that 
■word.  Nor  was  any  other  notion  ever  annexed  to  the  word — until  it  was 
found  convenient,  by  the  contenders  for  parity,  to  consider  an  Evangelist  as 
a  distinct  office  in  the  church,  in  order  to  evade  the  clear  and  direct  prece- 
dent for  parity,  given  in  the  case  of  Timothy  and  Titus." — pp.  42,  43. 

One  who  did  not  know  this  writer  would  suppose  from  his  bold 
and  peremptory  assertions,  that  all  christian  antiquity  is  as  familiar 
to  him  as  his  prayer  book.  But  let  us  see  what  reason  there  is  for 
his  confidence.  Rarely  indeed  does  he  afford  us  the  evidence  on 
which  he  relies — And  he  must  excuse  us,  and  all  who  think  with 
us,  for  not  believing  matters  of  history  on  his  assertion.  But  let 
us  inquire  for  the  proof:   and, 

1.  As  to  scripture,  Eph.  iv,  11.  "And  he  (Christ)  gave  some 
Apostles,  and  some  Prophets,  and  some  Evangelists,  and  some 
pastors  and  teachers."  Did  bishop  R.  recollect  this  passage  of 
scripture  ;  or  was  this  part  written  by  some  lay  assistant  not  very 
familiar  with  his  Bible  ?  Were  not  Apostles  officers  ?  Were  not 
prophets,  were  not  pastors  and  teachers  ?  And  is  it  according  to 
the  usage  of  any  respectable  writer  to  place  between  words  of  dis- 
tinct and  appropriated  meaning,  in  this  way,  a  general  and  indefinite 
term  which  comprehends  all  of  every  kind  ?  Bishop  R.  seems  to 
have  great  horror  at  our  innocent  word  Hermeneutics ;  but  we  can- 
not help  recommending  it  to  him  to  pay  some  attention  to  the  thing. 
The  term  Evangelist  occurs  in  two  other  places,  2  Tim.  iv,  6,  and 
Acts  xxi,  8.  In  the  first  of  these,  Timothy  is  expressly  called  an 
Evangelist.  And  in  the  second  the  same  tide  was  given  to  Philip, 
Tvho  had  once  been  one  of  the  seven  deacons  of  the  Church  in 
wTeru?alem.     So  much  for  the  use  of  the  word  in  scripture. 


88  Beview  of  Bishop  Ravemeroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence, 

2.  Let  us  look  to  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity.  Bishop  R.  will  then 
please  to  take  up  his  Eusebius  and  turn  to  the  third  book,  and 
thirty-seventh  chapter  (pa.  133  Edition  of  Reading.)  He  will  there 
find  an  account  of  Evangelists,  to  this  effect.  "Many  of  the  disci- 
ples of  that  age  with  a  vehement  love  of  divine  philosophy  which 
the  word  of  God  had  excited,  fulfilled  the  Saviour's  command  by  dis- 
tributing their  substance  to  the  poor.  Then  leaving  their  own 
country  and  going  abroad,  they  performed  the  work  of  Evangelists, 
(spyov  inelsT^XiVV  em.'y'ye7j.olGiv)he'\ng  eagerly  desirous  to  preach 
Christ  to  those  who  had  never  heard  the  doctrine  of  faith,  and  to 
deliver  to  them  the  sacred  scriptures.  And  after  they  had  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  true  religion  in  foreign  parts,  and  appointed 
others  as  pastors,  they  committed  the  new  converts  to  their  care, 
and  went  on  to  other  regions,  &c.  In  this  testimony,  both  Theophy- 
lact  and  Theodoret  concur  in  their  commentaries  on  Eph.  iv,  11. 
So  that  we  are  fully  warranted  in  asserting  that  Evangelists  were 
extraordinary  teachers  set  over  no  particular  churches,  but  em- 
ployed as  assistants  of  the  Apostles,  and  sent  from  one  place  to 
another,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing  churches  ;  or  strengthening 
them  in  their  faith  :  or  as  Theodoret  says,  EXSivoi  Tupiiovleg 
SXYipVTtOV  :  they  went  about  and  preached.  What  are  we  now  to 
think  of  bishop  R's  bold  assertions  about  scripture  and  antiquity? 
Is  it  unkind  in  us  to  advise  him  to  read  more,  before  he  writes  on 
these  subjects  ? 

The  case  of  Titus  is  so  similar  to  that  of  Timothy  that  we  cannot 
think  it  necessary  to  dwell  long  on  it.  It  is  universally  understood 
that  "a  Bishop  has  a  certain  district  under  his  government  called  a 
diocese,  beyond  the  limits  of  which  he  has  no  authority  at  all." 
Now  our  author  maintains  that  Titus  was  bishop  of  Crete.  But  let 
US  look  at  the  New  Testament.  We  there  find  that  Titus  was  sent 
by  the  Apostle  to  Corinth,  when  things  were  in  great  disorder 
there,  as  is  evident  from  Paul's  epistle  to  that  church.  [See  1 
Cor.  i,  12.  iv,  V,  vi,  xi,  xv,  xvi,  for  an  account  of  their  divisions, 
their  false  teachers,  their  immoralities,  their  neglect  of  discipline, 
their  going  to  law  before  the  heathen,  their  abuse  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  of  their  miraculous  gifts,  their  errors  about  the  resur- 
rection, &c.]  Here  it  would  seecn  was  work  for  a  Bishop.  And 
if  we  are  to  be  guided  by  things  instead  of  names,  must  we  not  say 
that  Titus  was  bishop  of  Corinth?  Timothy  indeed  was  also  sent 
to  that  place,  but  his  abode  was  short  ;  whereas  Titus  tarried  a 
considerable  time  ;  and  then  went  to  Paul  in  Macedonia  (2  Cor.  ii, 
13.  vii,  6,  G.)  He  brought  a  good  account  of  the  Corinthian  Church, 
and  was  then  sent  back  (2  Cor.  viii,  6 — See  also  xii,  18.)  After 
this  we  find  him  at  Rome  ;  and  from  thence  he  is  sent  to  Dalmatia. 
2  Tim.  iv,  10.  Either  before  or  after  this,  he  is  in  Crete.  But  he 
does  not  stay  there — He  is  required  to  be  at  Nicopolis  ;  and  what 
became  of  him  afterwards  the  New  Testament  does  not  mention. 
His  Episcopate  in  Crete  is  not  mentioned  until  after  the  year  three 
hundred.  But  then,  as  in  Timothy's  case,  it  is  not  settled  whether 
he  was  in  truth  bishop  or  archbishop.  Eusebius,  Ambrose  and 
Others  are  for  the  former ;  Chrvsostom,  Theodoret  and  their  foU 


Hemexo  of  Bishop  Ra'oenscrqft*s  Vindication  and  Defence,  89 

Towers  favour  the  latter  ;  Chrysostom  expressly  says  that  the  whole 
island  was  committed  to  bim,  that  he  might  exercise  power  and  ju^ 
risdiction  over  so  many  bishops.  Every  school-boy  knows  that 
Crete  was  very  populous  ;  that  it  was  famous  for  its  hundred  cities; 
that  the  people  were  licentious  and  dishonest  even  to  a  proverb. 
Of  course  bishop  Titus  would  have  quite  enough  to  do  governing 
so  many  clergy,  and  so  corrupt  a  people.  What  was  exactly  the 
ecclesiastical  ranii  of  Titus  we  leave  to  be  settled  by  those  who  are 
better  versed  in  these  matters  than  we  are.  But  really  for  the 
credit  of  these  two  eminent  ministers  of  the  gospel,  Timothy  and 
Titus,  we  do  hope  that  their  episcopacy  will  be  given  up.  Who 
can  believe  that  the  spiritual  government  of  the  Dioceses  of  Ephesus 
and  Crete  was  particuhirly  committed  to  them,  and  that  they  yet 
went  about  the  world,  minding  every  body's  business  but  their 
own  ? 

This  whole  case  is  plainly  this — The  planting  of  a  Church  of 
Christ  was  an  extraordinary  work.  Men  of  extraordinary  qualifi- 
cations were  employed  in  it.  But  as  the  work  was  too  great  for 
the  Apostles,  they  were  authorized  to  select  assistants  of  extraordi- 
nary gifts  and  attainments,  whom  they  sent  from  one  place  to 
another,  v.'ith  full  powers  to  complete  what  they  themselves  left 
unfinished.  And,  most  naturally,  the  Apostles  wrote  to  them  ac- 
cording to  their  real  character,  endowments,  and  duties.  The 
error  of  bishop  R.  consists  in  supposing  that  officers  of  the  church 
raised  up  for  an  extraordinary  occasion,  and  endowed  with  higher 
gifts  than  usual,  were  intended  to  be  perpetual  :  that  is  that  men 
who  were  designed  to  guide  and  regulate  the  churches,  until  the 
canon  of  scripture  should  be  complete,  and  all  christians  allowed 
access  to  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  were  intended  to  be  conti- 
nued, when  such  provisions  were  unnecessary. 

Bishop  R.  seems  to  place  some  reliance  on  the  subscriptions  to 
the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus  ;  for  he  thus  expresses  him- 
self. 

"Neither  are  the  subscriptions  to  the  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  any 
more  «'forgeries,"  as  you  venture  to  pronounce  them,  than  the  headings  of 
the  chapters  in  the  Bible,  or  than  the  divisions  of  the  Bible  into  chapters 
and  verses.  They  are  not  Scripture,  nor  considered  as  such,  but  as  declar- 
ations of  matters  ot  fact,  sufficiently  attested  by  other  evidence,  to  render 
it  both  safe  and  useful,  to  give  the  information  to  the  readers  of  Scripture. 
Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  and  Hilary  the  Deacon,  as 
quoted  by  Bingham,  Eccles.  Antiq.  vol,  I.  Book  2d,  chap.  1st,  page  20,  folio 
edition,  all  declare,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Ephesus  by  St, 
Paul — most  of  the  same  autliors  agree  in  tlie  same  declarations  as  to  Titus, 
that  he  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Crete  by  St.  Paul  also.  Therefore,  another 
assertion  of  yours  that,  "at  least  three  hundred  years  past  off  before  any 
thing  was  heard  of  the  Episcopate  of  Timothy  and  Titus,"  is  not  the  truth, 
these  writers  being  witnt-sst- s  with  the  scriptures. — Nor  yet  is  it  true  that 
"there  is  nothing  but  uiicerlain  trudition  to  support  tliis  notion" — both 
which  rash  and  unfoundeil  assertions,  yon  make  at  p.  647.  The  tradition 
for  "this  notion,  '  as  you  call  it,  being  evidence  just  ascertain  as  that,  on 
which  all  christians  rely  for  the  autlienticity  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  and 
for  the  fact,  that  it  is  a  revelation  from  God!"— p.  72. 

Surely  no  writer  ever  was  so  reckless  as  our  Diocesan.  Either 
he  supposes  that  his  readers  are  totally  ignorant ;  or  he  himself  has 


90  Review  of  Bishop  Ilavensci'ojt-s  Vindication  and  Dejence. 

never  spent  time  in  making  himself  acquainted  with  the  Fathere. 
whose  writings  he  thus  refers  to  ;  or  with  the  former  history  of  the 
church,  concerning  which  he  makes  such  bold  assertions.  As  to 
the  subscriptions  to  the  Epistles,  the  Bishop  says  that  they  are  not 
forgeries,  nor  yet  are  they  scripture.  How  then  came  they  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  How  is  it  that  they  are  printed,  as  sometimes 
they  are,  in  a  way  entirely  to  mislead  the  common  reader  ?  To  say 
that  they  are  to  be  considered  in  the  same  light  as  the  headings  of 
the  chapters,  or  division  of  the  Bible  into  chapters  and  verses,  is 
egregious  trifling.  But  they  are  "declarations  of  matters  of  fact 
sufficiently  attested  by  other  evidence,  to  make  it  both  safe  and 
useful  to  give  the  information  to  the  readers  of  Scripture." — Well 
let  us  examine  this  matter  a  little.  And  we  hope  that  while  the 
bishop  is  reading  this  part  of  our  Review  he  will  keep  his  critical 
edition  of  the  Greek  Testament  open  before  him,  his  Mill,  or  his 
Wetstein,  or  his  Griesback,  Doing  this,  he  will  perceive,  at  once, 
that  the  manuscripts  vary  so  much  as  to  render  it  impossible  for 
him  to  determine  what  the  matters  of  fact  here  attested  are  :  and  it 
is  an  odd  sort  of  testimony  that  leaves  us  at  a  loss  to  know  even  what 
are  the  facts  of  the  case. 

In  the  next  place,  it  cannot  but  occur  to  one  who  is  able  to  make 
such  strong  assertions  respecting  antiquity,  that  the  inscription  at 
the  end  of  the  first  epistle  was  placed  there  more  than  250  years 
after  the  death  of  Paul;  because  the  term  pacatiana  was  not  in  use 
until  the  reign  of  Constantine  the  Great.  We  will  not  dispute 
about  the  word  forgery.  But  when  an  unknown  transcriber  dates 
a  letter  at  a  place,  near  three  hundred  years  after  it  was  written, 
what  is  the  worth  of  his  testimony? 

The  inscription  affixed  to  the  second  epistle  is  wanting  in  all  the 
most  ancient  and  valuable  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament. 
And  in  those  of  a  later  date,  the  variations  are  very  considerable. 
It  is  therefore  spurious;  it  bears  on  the  face  of  it  the  character  of 
later  times.  And  we  must  be  pardoned  for  telling  the  bishop  that 
this  appeal  to  these  inscriptions  will  excite  the  surprise  of  all  who 
have  made  Biblical  Criticism  a  subject  of  study.  Many  too  will 
laugh  at  a  bishop,  who,  in  this  age,  gravely  refers  to  evidence  of 
this  sort  to  support  his  high  pretensions.  We  are  really  sorry  for 
this — but  how  can  we  help  it,  if  the  bishop  will  expose  himself? 

But  there  is  something  more  surprising  than  this — The  bishop 
says,  "  Eusebius,  Chrysostom.  Epiphanius,  Jerome,  and  Hilary 
the  deacon  all  declare  that  Timothy  was  ordained  bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus  by  St.  Paul,  &.c. — Therefore  another  assertion  of  )ours,  that 
"  at  least  three  nundrf^d  years  past  off  before  any  thinii  was  heard 
of  the  episcopate  of  Timothy  and  Titus,"  is  not  the  truth,  these 
writers  being  witnesses  with  the  scriptures."  ! ! ! ! 

We  have  shown  that  there  is  no  evidence  for  this  in  the  scrip- 
tures; except  these /amo!(s  inscriptions,  which  are  not  scripture; 
but  have  been  foisted  in  to  support  prelatical  pretensions;  and 
which  are  retained  vvlien  every  man,  who  knows  the  least  thing 
about  these  matters  knows  that  they  are  spurious.  And  as  for  the 
list  of  witnesses  given  above,  we  have  nothing  to  say  more  than 
adduce  the  following  fact-?-, 


Hmew  &f  Bishop  RamiscrojVs  Vindication  and  Defence.  9i 

Eusebius  tlied  Anno  Domini,  340.  Chrysostoro,  407.  Epipha- 
nius,  402.  Jerome,  420.  Hilary  the  Deacon  wrote  about  3843 
when  he  died  is  uncertain. 

Will  the  bishop  be  so  good  as  to  explain  to  us  how  these  old 
Fathers  could  have  testified  to  the  facts  whkh  he  wishes  to  make 
4hem  prove,  before  they  were  born?  Do  let  us  hear  how  they 
bear  witness  that  our  assertion  is  not  true.  We  say  nothing  of  the 
clerical  propriety  of  the  bishop's  terms.  We  only  wish  to  know 
iiow  witnesses  who  lived  in  the  4th  century  can  disprove  the  truth 
of  our  assertion. 

We  have  now  shown  that 

1.  Deacons  were  not  ministers  of  the  word. 

2.  That  the  Apostles  were  not  of  a  difll^rent  order  from  Presbj'- 
ters;  er  if  they  were,  that  they  were  extraordinary  officers,  who 
as  such  had  no  successors. 

3.  That  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  diocesan  bishops  but  evan- 
gelists; not  of  a  different  order  from  presbyters,  but  employed 
also  as  extraordinary  officers  for  the  particular  occasion. 

And  from  all  this  it  would  seem  to  follow  that  according  to  our 
Reviewer,  the  permanent  teachers  in  the  church  were  those  who, 
according  to  bishop  R's  own  confession,  were  styled  indifferently 
elders  or  bishops.     But  we  have  still  more  to  say  on  this  subject. 

Our  reviewer  had  said  "  The  whole  language  of  the  New  Tes^ 
fament  is  such,  as  to  have  extorted  from  many  learned  Episcopa- 
lians the  confession,  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same." 

Tp  this  the  bishop  thought  it  consistent  with  clerical  proprietj'^s 
to  reply  in  the  following  terms. 

«  Sir,  I  am  sorry  that  any  man  having  a  character  to  lose,  whether  for 
christian  candour  or  literary  fairness,  should  so  commit  himself.  For  what 
is  this  but  the  threadbare,  exploded  argument,  from  the  Community  of 
Names,  which  no  Episcopalian  pretends  to  dispute.  But  you  cannot  bring 
forward  a  solitary  learned  Episcopalian,  by  whom  the  confession  ever  was 
made,  that  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  the  same  order  in  the  ministry.  Far 
less  can  you  estabhsh  your  assertion  either  from  scripture  or  antiquity. 

"Were  you  conversant  with  the  writings  of  Mr  Charles  Leslie,  I  think, 
that  even  the  necessity  of  your  case,  could  hardly  have  driven  you  to  so 
weak  a  'defence  of  your  cause,  as  you  have  here  resorted  to.  And  as  the 
objection  is  old  and  unadorned  with  any  thing  new  or  even  ingenious  in  its 
support,  I  shall  reply  to  it  in  his  words,  as  I  find  them  in  the  discourse  be= 
fore  mentioned, 

" '  If  the  Presbyterians  will  say  (because  they  have  nothing  left  to  say) 
that  all  London  (for  example)  was  but  one  Parisli — and  that  the  Presbyter 
of  every  other  Parish,  was  as  mueh  a  Bishop  as  the  Bishop  of  London,  bC' 
cause  the  words  Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  sometimes  used  in  the  same  senses 
they  may  as  well  prove  that  Christ  was  but  a  Deacon,  because  he  is  so  called; 
Rom.  XV,  8.  And  Bishop  signifies  an  overseer,  and  Presbyter  an  ancient 
man  or  elder  man — whence  our  term  of  Alderman.  And  this  is  as  good  a 
foundation  to  prove  that  the  Apostles  were  Aldermen,  in  the  City  accepta= 
iion  of  the  word  ;  or  that  our  Aldermen  are  all  Bishops  and  Apostles,  as  to 
prove  that  Presbyters  and  Bishops  are  all  one;  from  the  childish  jingle  of 
the  words. 

« 'It  would  be  the  same  thing  if  one  should  undertake  to  confront  all  an» 
tiquity,  and  prove  against  all  the  histories,  that  the  Emperors  of  Rome  were 
no  more  than  the  Generals  of  Armies,  and  that  every  Roman  General  was 
Emperor  of  Rome,  because  he  could  find  the  word  Irnperator,  sometimss 
applied  to  the  general  of  an  armv, 

1<> 


92  Heview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqffs  Vindication  and  Defence, 

« '  Or,  as  if  a  commonwealth's  man  shouUl  get  up  and  say— that  ou? 
former  Kings,  were  no  more  than  our  Dukes  are  now,  because  the  stile  of 
Grace,  which  is  now  given  to  Dukes,  was  then  given  to  Kmgs. 

*' '  And  suppose  that  any  one  was  put  under  the  penance  of  answering 
such  ridiculous  arguments,  what  method  would  be  taken,  but  to  show  that 
the  Emperors  of  Rome,  and  former  Kings  of  England  had  Generals  of  ar- 
mies, and  Dukes  under  them,  and  exercised  authority  over  them  ? 

*' '  Therefore,  when  we  find  it  given  in  charge  to  Timothy,  the  first 
Bishop  of  Ephesus — how  he  was  to  proceed  against  his  Presbyters  when 
they  transgressed — to  sit  in  judgment  upon  them,  examine  witnesses 
against  them,  and  pass  censures  upon  them,  it  is  a  most  impertinent  logo- 
machy to  argue  from  the  etymology  of  the  words,  that  notwithstanding  all 
this— a  Bishop  and  a  Presbyter  are  th?  same  thing.  Therefore,  that  one 
text  1  Tim.  v,  19,  is  sufficient  to  silence  the  pitiful  clamour  of  the  Presby- 
terians. Our  English  translation  reads  it  "against  an  Elder" — which  is  the 
literal  translation  of  the  word  Presbyter—"  against  a  Presbyter  receive  not 
an  accusation,  but  before  two  or  three  witnesses,  and  them  that  sin,  rebuke 
before  all,  that  others  also  may  fear."  Now  upon  the  Presbyterian  hypo- 
thesis we  must  say,  that  Timothy  had  no  authority  or  jurisdiction  over  that 
presbyter,  against  whom  he  had  power  to  receive  accusations,  examine 
witnesses  and  pass  censures  upon  him  ;  and  that  such  a  Presbyter  had  the 
same  authority  over  Timothy ;  which  is  so  extravagant,  and  against  common 
sense,  that  I  will  not  stay  longer  to  confute  it ;  and  this  is  enough  to  have 
said  concerning  the  Presbyterian  argument  from  the  etymology  of  the  word 
Presbyter  and  Bishop."- pp.  66,  67. 

It  is  surprising,  that  whenever  a  high  churchman  meets  with  the 
argument  for  ministerial  equality  derived  from  the  community  of 
names,  it  invariably  appears  to  put  him  into  a  passion.  But  why 
should  that  which  is  perfectly  insignificant  produce  such  excite' 
ment?  Why,  too,  did  it  not  occur  to  our  prelate,  that  the  character 
of  our  Reviewer,  whatever  it  may  be,  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
force  of  the  argument?  The  bishop  here  is  at  hi?  bold  assertions 
again.  He  says  that  we  "  cannot  bring  forward  a  solitary  learned 
episcopalian,  by  whom  the  confession  was  ever  made,  that  bishop 
and  presbyter  were  the  same  order  in  the  ministry."  Why  will 
not  this  prelate  according  to  the  charge  of  Paul  to  Timothy  "  give 
himself  to  reading?"  There  are  many,  very  many  things  in  the 
•writings  of  learned  episcopalians,  which  bishop  R.  knows  very  well 
that  he  never  saw:  why  then  will  he  subject  himself  by  confident 
affirmation  to  continual  exposure?  Did  he  ever  read  Sir  Peter 
King's  Inquiry  into  the  Constitution  of  the  Primitive  Clmrch?  He  was 
once  Lord  Chancellor  of  England;  a  man  of  very  extensive  learn= 
ing.  He  proves  beyond  a  doubt  that  in  the  primitive  church,  a 
presbyter  had  the  whole  power  of  a  bishop;  and  that  the  difference 
between  them  was  that  the  bishop  had  a  pastoral  charge,  and  the 
presbyter  had  not. 

What  does  bishop  R.  think  of  Bingham— was  he  learned?  Well, 
he  says  that  "  the  Church  of  England  does  by  no  means  damn  or 
cut  off  from  her  communion,  those  who  believe  bishops  and  pres- 
byters to  be  the  same  order.  Some  of  our  best  episcopal  divines, 
and  true  sons  of  the  Church  of  England,  have  said  the  same,  dis- 
tinguishing between  order  and  jurisdiction,  and  made  use  of  this 
doctrine  and  distinction  to  justify  the  ordinations  of  the  Reformed 
churches,  against  the  Romanists."  But  it  is  needless  to  pursue 
tilts  subject  ^irther.    L«?t  bishop  R,  borrow  from  nny  pvesbyterian 


Heview  of  Bisliop  llavenscroJCs  Vtndicatioii  and  Defence,    93 

neighbour  of  his,  Dr  Miller's  Letters  concerning  the  Co7istitntio7i  and 
Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  and  read  from  page  24C  to  285; 
and  without  taking  the  time  to  peruse  all  the  works  of  all  learned 
episcopalians,  he  will  find  that  he  ought  not  to  make  assertions  so 
readily  as  he  allovys  himself  to  do. 

As  for  the  argument  borrowed  from  Leslie,  we  had  seen  it  be- 
fore  we  ever  heard  of  bishop  R.;  and  had  seen  it  answered  in  a 
manner  most  perfectly  satisfactory.  We  do  request  it  as  a  most 
particular  favour  of  bishop  il.  that  on  this  subject  he  would  read 
what  is  to  be  found  in  the  Christian's  Magazine,  vol.  1,  pp.  187 — 
211.  This  is  a  Review  of  Essays  on  Episcopacy  from  the  pen  of 
the  celebrated  Dr  Mason  of  New  York.  Were  the  bishop  convers- 
ant with  the  writings  of  Dr  Mason,  we  do  not  think,  that  even  the 
necessity  of  his  case  could  have  driven  him  to  so  weak  a  defence 
of  his  cause  as  he  has  here  resorted  to.  We  feel  that  we  have  a 
right  to  re-echo  the  bishop's  words.  No  man  who  understands  the 
use  of  language,  and  considers  this  subject  without  prejudice,  can 
sincerely  scorn  the  argument  for  parity  derived  from  the  communi- 
ty of  names. 

We  have  before  remarked,  that  the  names  of  officers  in  the 
Christian  church  were' general  terms,  as  is  the  case  with  many 
words  used  to  express  offices  in  civil  life.  In  some  cases,  these 
words  are  used  in  their  ordinary  sense,  while  in  others  they  are  re- 
stricted.  A  remarkable  case  of  this  kind  occurs  in  1  Tim.  v,  1  and 
19.  The  word  Elder  in  the  first  verse  evidently  means  an  old  man; 
in  the  19th  it  means  a  particular  officer  in  the  church.  The  con- 
text enables  any  one  not  a  mere  child  to  perceive  this  at  once. 
The  rule  which  has  been  laid  down  is  this;  when  a  writer's  sub- 
ject is  the  church  in  any  part  of  its  polity,  then  we  take  it  for 
granted  that  the  terms  of  office  are  used  in  their  restricted  sense: 
otherwise  their  general  meaning  is  to  be  attributed  to  these  words. 
It  is  just  so  in  civil  cases.  Congress,  assembly,  judge  and  the  like 
are  general  terms  admitting  of  various  applications.  But  when  we 
speak  of  our  government,  then  these  terms  at  once  become  re- 
stricted; and  any  but  an  ideot  can  understand  their  definite  appli- 
cation; and  the  peculiar  powers  belonging  to  the  several  offices 
held  under  the  government.  Indeed  it  is  impossible  to  speak  in- 
telligibly in  relation  to  this  subject,  without  giving  to  words  that  re- 
stricted meaning  on  which  we  insist-  Why  does  it  appear  absurd 
to  show  that  Christ  was  but  a  deacon^  if  the  general  term  deacon,  is 
not  restricted  in  its  application  to  a  particular  church  officer?  For 
the  same  reason  and  for  that  only  it  appears  absurd  to  say  that 
apostles  are  aldermen.  We  annex  a  definite  idea  to  the  term 
apostle,  we  think  of  a  particular  officer  in  the  church  of  Christ: 
So  also  in  using  the  word  alderman  we  think  of  a  particular  officer 
in  a  city  corporation;  and  hence  the  obvious  absurdity.  So  then, 
the  episcopalians  cannot  use  their  favourite  arguments  to  turn  us* 
in  this  case  into  ridicule,  without  admitting  the  very  principle  for 
which  we  contend.  We  say  that  the  word  bishop,  signifying,  in 
its  general  sense,  an  overseer,  when  applied  to  an  officer  in  the 
pjimitive  church  is  definite  in  it?  mej^ping;  that  it  does  not  signify 


M    2ici>icxi-  <.y  Jjta'iLU^)  lia iciticroji's  Viudicaliou and  Dejaint, 

an  apostle,  nor  a  deacon,  but  in  the  restricted  sense  of  these  term;, 
oue  who  has  the  oversight  of  a  particular  chiirch.  In  like  mannerj 
the  word  presbyter,  when  used  in  the  same  way,  has  a  definite 
meaning,  so  that  presbyter  for  instance  cannot  be  commuted  for 
deacon.  But  while  official  terms  have  this  restricted  signification j 
it  is  evident  beyond  dispute,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  used  in- 
discriminately for  the  same  office.  The  only  difference  between 
them  being  this,  that  the  word  presbxjter  conveys  an  idea  of  the 
authority  with  which  one  esecutes  his  office*^  and  bishop,  (sTtLCxO' 
Ttog)  the  actual  discharge  of  official  duty. 

Or  to  express  our  ideas  in  other  terms — when  we  find  in  scrip- 
ture, the  terms  apostle,  bishop,  deacon,  applied  to  officers  in  the 
church  of  Christ,  it  is  evident  that  bishop  cannot  be  used  in  place 
of  either  apostle  or  deacon:  the  case  is  the  same  with  apostle,  pres- 
byter and  deacon:  but  presbyter  and  bishop  may  at  any  time  be  sub- 
stituted one  for  another  without  in  the  least  degree  hurting  the 
sense.  This  is  done  twice  by  the  apostle  Paul;  once  in  the  20th  of 
Acts,  and  once  in  the  Epistle  to  Titus.  If  then  language  can  con- 
vey any  definite  ideas,  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  bishops 
and  presbyters,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  are  officers  of 
the  same  order. 

The  additional  instances  given  by  Leslie  are  not  fairly  stated:  no 
presbyterian  ever  thought  of  proving  parity  after  this  fashion.  If 
imperator,  although  for  many  years  it  signified  the  general  of  ai5 
army,  yet  when  in  the  degenerate  days  of  Rome  the  soldiers  elected 
the  chief  of  the  empire,  became  restricted  in  its  signification,  then 
we  might  certainly  know  that  imperator  meant  emperor.  And  sup- 
posing that  the  term  Augustus  was  also  used,  after  the  days  of  Oc- 
tavius  Caesar,  to  designate  the  emperor,  then  it  would  follow  unde- 
niably that  Augustus,  and  Imperator  expressed  precisely  the  same 
office.  But  no,  say  the  episcopalians,  imperator  signifies  a  general, 
and  it  is  pitiful  trifling  to  pretend  that  it  means  emperor.  The 
reader  can  easily  see  on  which  side  the  sophistry  lies. 

Just  so  in  regard  to  the  instance  of  king  and  duke.  It  is  a  man- 
ifest perversion  of  the  case.  No  commonwealth's  man,  no  pres- 
byterian ever  reasoned  in  this  pitiful  way.  But  thus — formerly  the 
kings  of  England  were  distinguished  by  the  style  of  grace.  When 
therefore  a  writer  speaks  of  the  king,  he  means  the  person  styleil 
his  grace:  and  when  he  uses  the  term  his  grace  he  means  the  king. 
His  grace,  and  king  then  mean  the  very  same  office  and  authority. 
Is  this  too  ridiculous  to  be  answered?  But  says  Mr  Charles  Leslie, 
the  term  grace  is  now  applied  to  dukes,  and  therefore  a  duke  and  a 
king  cannot  be  the  same.  A  very  sapient  conclusion  indeed!  Bishop 
and  presbyter  once  were  applied  indifferently  to  the  same  church  of- 
ficer;  but  since  that  time,  the  meaning  of  the  words  is  changed; 
'bishop  now  signifies  an  officer  of  the  highest  order,  and  presbyter 
one  in  the  next  rank;  therefore,  before  this  change  took  place,  they 
meant  officers  of  different  order:  that  is,  when  they  were  used 
indiscriminately  for  the  same  officer,  they  meant  officers  entirely  dif- 
ferent. This  is  the  sort  of  reasoning  in  which  bishop  R.  perfectly 
coincides.  We  can  only  say  that  he  manifests  wonderful  facility 
towards  his  own  party. 


jfieview  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  ant  Vefence.  93 

As  for  all  the  rest  about  Timothy,  we  have  sufficiently  answered 
it  already. 

But  now  we  come  to  his  ten  instances  from  the  scripture  of  dio- 
cesan episcopacy. 

These  are  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus — two. 

Of  the  angels  of  the  churches  in  Revelations — seven. 

Of  the  episcopacy  of  James  in  Jerusalem — one. 

In  all  ten! 

We  hope  that  our  readers,  by  this  time,  know  well  enough  what 
to  think  of  the  first  two. 

ki  regard  to  the  angels  of  the  seven  churches,  the  bishop  writes 
thus, 

"  In  the  lifetime  of  John,  the  beloved  disciple,  we  have  further  proof  of 
Diocesan  Episcopacy,  in  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  to  whose  respective 
Angels,  or  chief  Governors,  were  addressed,  through  St.  John,  the  admo=> 
nitions  of  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  I  enter  not  into  the  unprofitable 
and  childish  jangle,  raised  on  the  word  Angel,  in  order  to  support  the 
Presbyterian  hypothesis.  Sufficient  it  is  for  me,  that  the  Church  of  Ephe* 
sus  is  in  the  nuniber  of  the  seven  thus  admonished ;  in  which,  we  have  aU 
ready  seen  from  Scripture,  that  a  Diocesan  Bishop  was  appointed  ;  and 
have  good  reason  to  believe,  that  the  succession  from  Timothy  was  acted 
upon  before  the  Apocalyptic  vision ;  because  upwards  of  thirty  years 
elapsed,  from  the  appointment  of  Timothy  to  the  government  of  the  Ephe° 
sian  Church,  to  the  giving  the  Revelation  to  St.  John ;  and  we  well  know, 
that  the  primitive  Bishops,  or  Angels  of  the  Churches,  had  but  a  short  space 
given  them  by  the  persecuting  powers. 

"  If  then,  the  Bishop  or  chief  governor  of  the  Ephesian  Church,  is  ad- 
dressed in  a  revelation  from  Heaven,  as  the  Angel  of  that  Church,  and  ig 
commended  for  the  just  exercise  of  his  episcopal  authority,  in  trying  theui 
which  said  they  were  Apostles,  but  were  not.  Rev.  li,  2,  the  same  official 
character  and  station  must  be  assigned  to  the  Angels  of  the  other  sis 
Churches — We  have  therefore  at  once,  and  from  Scripture  too,  six  addi- 
tional testimonies  against  your  "  indisputable  fact." 

"  If  to  this  we  add  the  testimony  which  Ecclesiastical  antiquity  gives  in 
support  of  the  diocesan  character  of  these  Angels,  it  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand upon  what  principle  it  can  be  resisted.  For  we  have  extant,  the  Epis- 
tles of  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  ordained  by  the  Apostles,  to  three  of 
these  Apocalyptic  Churches,  the  Ephesian,  the  Philadelphian  and  the  Smyr- 
nean,  in  all  of  which  he  recognises  the  three  orders  of  the  Bishop,  the 
Presbytery  and  the  Deacons — particularly  in  that  to  the  Ephesians,  he 
speaks  of  Onesimus  their  Bishop,  who  of  course  must  have  been  such  subse- 
quent to  Timothy.  And  in  that  to  the  Smyrneans,  of  Polycarp  their  Bishop, 
who  was  also  apostolically  ordained  to  his  office  of  Angel  or  Bishop.  To  this 
we  can  add  tlie  testimony  of  many  witnesses,  particulnrly  of  St.  Augustine 
and  Epiphanius,  that  by  the  Angels  of  the  Apocalyptic  »:hurches,  the  chief 
rulers  or  Bishops  of  those  Churches  were  always  understood. 

♦'  Another  testimony  to  this  point,  less  objectionable  perhaps  in  your  eyes 
than  the  early  historians  of  the  Church,  is  found  in  the  more  modern  ec- 
clesiastical historian  Mosheim ;  in  his  commentaries  on  the  three  first  cen- 
turies, Vidal's  translation,  p.  227,  -'28,  note — he  thus  expresses  himself^ 
'  In  support  of  this  opinion,  (that  Episcopacy  was  established  during  the 
lifetime  of  the  Apostles  and  with  their  approbation)  we  are  supplied  with 
an  argument  of  such  strength,  in  those  •  Angels'  to  whom  St.  John  addressed 
the  Epistles,  which,  by  the  command  of  our  Saviour  himself,  he  sent  to  the 
seven  churches  of  Asia — as  tiie  Presbyterians,  as  they  are  termed,  let  them 
labour  and  strive  what  they  may,  will  never  be  able  to  overcome.  It  must 
be  evident  to  every  one,  even  on  a  cursory  perusal  of  the  Epistles  to  which 
we  refer,  that  those  who  are  therein  termed  •  Angels,'  were  persons  pos- 
sessing such  a  degree  of  authority  in  their  respective  churches,  as  enabled 


96  Rei'lew  of  Bishop  Il(ivcnscroft*$  Vindication  and  Defence. 

them  to  mark  with  merited  disgrace,  whatever  might  appear  to  be  deserv- 
ing of  reprehension,  and  also  to  give  due  countenance  and  encouragement 
to  every  thing  that  was  virtuous  and  commendable.'" — pp.  70,  71. 

If  we  admit  that  the  symbolical  term  angel  is  to  be  restricted  to  a 
single  person,  there  is  nothing  in  the  phraseology,  which  may  not 
be  applied  to  a  parochial  as  well  as  to  a  diocesan  bishop.  Should 
we  choose  to  adopt  the  language  of  the  apocalypse,  and  address 
letters  to  the  angel  of  the  church  in  Raleigh,  in  Fayetteville,  in 
Hillsborough,  our  communications  would  be  just  as  appropriate  to 
Presbyterian  clergymen  in  those  places,  as  to  the  episcopalians. 
But  bishop  R.,  with  all  his  prelatical  friends  to  help  him,  can  never 
prove  that  the  term  angel  as  a  symbol  is  restricted  to  the  clergy. 
A  single  term  when  used  symbolically,  most  commonly,  if  not  uni- 
versally, expresses  a  collective  body.  Now,  as  there  is  not  a  single 
instance  in  all  the  preceding  parts  of  the  New  Testament  of  an 
epistle  directed  to  the  bishop  of  a  church;  but  all  are  addressed  to 
the  churches  collectively,  as  for  instance  to  the  Romans,  Corinth- 
ians, Galatians,  &c.;  we  shall  believe  until  better  evidence  than  has 
ever  yet  been  adduced,  shall  be  set  before  us,  that  the  apostle  did 
not  depart  from  the  common  practice. 

It  would  be  amusing,  if  we  had  time  for  it,  to  show  how  the  high 
going  churchmen  differ  in  their  explications  of  this  passage.  They 
deal  much,  very  much  in  what  bishop  R.  (who  certainly  did  not 
know  all  that  learned  episcopalians  have  written  on  this  subject,) 
calls  "unprofitable  and  childish  jangle:" — in  "the  sophistry  of 
names."  Has  bishop  R.  read  Potter  on  Church  Government?  He 
will  ^n^jaiigle  enough  there,  on  the  word  angel.  But  he  relies  on 
the  fact  that  Timothy  was  bishop  of  Ephesus.  This  is  what  a 
great  man  used  to  call  -a  false  fact:  and  therefore  his  argument  falls 
to  the  ground.  Timothy's  episcopacy  is  to  the  bishop  what  "  the 
great  goddess  Diana"  was  to  the  Ephesians.  It  is  about  as  good, 
too,  for  proof,  as  Diana  was  for  a  divinity.  But  really  there  is 
something  original  in  the  argument  which  follows.  'A  diocesan 
bishop  had  been  appointed — namely  Timothy — and  upwards  of 
thirty  years  had  elapsed  before  John  wrote  by  direction,  the  epistle 
to  the  church  at  Ephesus,'  therefore  "the  succession  from  Timothy 
was  acted  upon;"  and  the  angel  of  the  church  was  a  diocesan 
bishop.  lif  our  author  expects  to  convince  any  but  prejudiced  par- 
tizans,  by  such  arguments,  he  certainly  has  tlie  poorest  way  of 
complimenting  their  understandings  that  we  ever  heard  of  Let 
bishop  R.  either  prove  that  angel  can  mean  nothing  but  a  diocesan 
bishop — which  he  never  can  do: — or  let  him  give  up  the  authority 
derived  from  a  symbolical  word  altogether. 

But  here  we  have  a  most  notable  instance  of  the  "art  of  sinking" 
in  argument.  We  were  promised  ten  undeniable  instances  from 
scripture  of  the  establishment  of  diocesan  episcopacy  by  the  Apos- 
tles. We  accordingly  were  looking  with  all  our  eyes  for  scrip- 
ture evidence  ;  when  behold  we  have  the  testimony  of  Ignatius, 
Epiphanius,  and  Augustine.  Surely  undeniable  evidence  from 
scripture  needs  no  such  support  as  this.  As  for  Ignatius,  every 
one  ought  to  know  that  there  is  a  dispute  yet  unsettled  respecting 
the  genuinenesij  of  bis  epistle?     We  shall  not  enter  on  this  subject. 


E^view  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqfi^s  Vindication  and  Defence*  9f 

however,  at  present.  A  witness  whose  credibility  is  not  admitted^ 
makes  but  a  sorry  figure  in  support  of  undeniable  scriptural  facta. 
But  we  are  prepared  to  show  at  the  proper  time,  that,  waiving  this 
objection,  Ignatius  does  not  sustain  diocesan  episcopacy.  As  for 
Epiphanius  and  Augustine,  they  can  depose  to  what  the  Apostles 
did,  just  about  as  well  as  bishop  R.  can  give  testimony  as  to  the 
matters  in  dispute,  in  the  days  of  Charles  the  1st  of  England,  be- 
tween the  advocates  of  the  star  chamber,  and  high  commission^  and 
the  friends  of  civil  and  religious  liberty. 

But,  as  young  rhetoricians  are  pleased  to  say,  the  bishop  "caps 
the  climax,"  when  he  brings  forward  the  testimony  of  Mosheiin  as 
translated  by  Fidal,  to  prove  what  the  Apostles  established  in  the 
church — a  witness  who  lived  more  than  seventeen  hundred  years 
after  the  event  to  which  he  testifies !  Mosheim  was  a  very  learned 
man,  and  his  opinion  is  entitled  to  respect.  He,  however,  was 
not  free  from  prejudices,  as  any  one  may  see  who  reads  his  Eccle- 
siastical History.  His  opinions  then  will  be  carefully  examined  by 
every  one,  who  wishes  not  to  be  mislead.  But  all  this,  is  nothing 
to  the  point  before  us.  We  are  promised  evidence  from  the  scrip- 
ture, and  are  gravely  told  of  Ignatius,  and  Epiphanius,  of  Augustine 
and  Mosheim ! 

The  author  gives  us  his  tenth  instance  from  the  New  Testament 
JQ  the  following  words. 

^'Another  and  decisive  proof  from  Scripture  in  favour  of  Diocesan  Epis» 
copacy,  is  furnished  in  the  constitution  and  government  of  the  first  Christian 
Church  that  ever  was  gathered  in  the  world,  the  Church  in  Jerusalem. 
The  converts  to  the  faith  in  that  City,  are  counted  by  thousands  in  the  New 
Testament,  so  that  it  was  impossible  they  could  all  assemble  in  one  place, 
and  must,  for  convenience,  if  not  for  safety,  have  had  different  places  of 
worship.  Over  these  separate  congregations,  with  their  respective  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons,  a  near  kinsman  of  our  blessed  Lord  presided,  as  ia 
evident  from  the  manner  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

"That  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  as  he  is  called  in  Scripture,  was  truly 
the  Bishop  or  chief  governor  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  and  ordained 
thereto  by  the  Apostles  themselves,  is  attested  by  all  antiquity.  By  Hege- 
sippus  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus  in  the  second,  and  by  Chrysostom,  and 
your  favourite  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century.  To  this  I  will  add  the  testi- 
mony of  the  same  Mosheim  before  mentioned,  extracted  from  the  same  work, 
p,  229,  230,  note — "As  the  early  churches  are  well  known  to  have  taken  all 
their  institutions  aiid  regulations  from  the  model  exhibited  to  them  in  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  it  appears  to  me,  that  scarcely  a  doubt  can  be  enter- 
tained  of  their  having  been  also  indebted  to  this  last  mentioned  venerable 
assembly,  for  the  example  of  appointing  some  one  man  to  preside  over  the 
Presbyters,  and  general  interest  of  each  individual  Church,  and  that  the  first 
instance  of  any  one's  being  invested  with  the  Episcopal  office  occurred  in 
that  city."— pp.  71,  72. 

Our  readers  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  this  last  ''decisive  proof 
from  scripture,"  is  patched  up  by  the  testimony  of  men  who  lived 
from  a  hundred  to  seventeen  hundred  years  and  more  after  the 
time.  We  have  wondered  much-whether  bishop  R.  ever  took  pains 
to  become  acquainted  with  the  character  of  his  authorities.  Where, 
for  instance,  has  he  seen  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus  ?  Does  the 
bishop  know  that  there  are  only  five  very  small  fragments  of  the 
work  of  Hegesippus  preserved  by  Eusebius,  and  that  even  these 
remnants  arc  sufficient  to  destroy  hi;;  authority.     Let  bishop  R-,  turn 


98  Review  of  Bishop  Ra-censcroft's  Vindication  and  Dejence* 

to  his  Eusebius  Lib.  2,  c,  23,  and  he  will  find  a  long,  fabulous 
account  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  :  and  if  he  will  trouble  himself 
so  far  as  to  consult  the  learned  Dupin's  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  he  will 
find  that  even  candid  Roman  Catholics  admit  that  such  is  the  char- 
acter of  Hegesippus.  But  the  testimony  of  the/a</iers  will  be  con- 
sidered in  a  subsequent  part  of  our  work.  At  present  we  are  only 
concerned  with  the  scriptures.  Our  author  contents  himself  with 
the  bare  assertion  that  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  presided  over 
the  several  congregations  in  Jerusalem  "as  is  evident  from  the 
manner  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Our  reader's 
who  are  acquainted  with  Mosheim,  may  well  be  surprised  that 
bishop  R.  who  quotes  him  for  authority,  took  no  notice  of  his  proof 
that  James  could  not  have  been  bishop  of  Jerusalem.  We  have  no 
copy  at  hand  of  Vidal's  translation  ;  but  we  are  sure  that  the  pas- 
sage to  which  we  refer,  cannot  be  very  distant  from  that  quoted  by 
bishop  R. 

"If  this  is  sound  reasoning,  James  held  the  chief  authority  in  the 
church  in  Jerusalem,  therefore  he  was  its  bishop  ;  we  must  assent 
to  this  conclusion  also,  the  twelve  Apostles  governed  the  church  at 
Jerusalem,  therefore  they  were  all  bishops  of  that  church.  Why 
many  words  ?  There  is  a  very  great  diff'erence  between  the  office  of 
bishop  and  apostle ;  and  therefore  I  think  that  James,  who  was  an 
Apostle,  did  not  sustain  the  office  of  bishop  in  Jerusalem.  I  am  of 
opinion  rather  that  the  Presbyters  governed  the  christian  people 
in  Jerusalem  ;  in  such  a  way  however  as  to  do  nothing  of  great  im- 
portance without  the  counsel  and  authority  of  James  :  and  as  they 
had  before  shown  themselves  obedient  to  the  whole  college  of  the 
Apostles,  so  also  they  did  to  him.  Although  therefore  we  judge 
that  the  ancients  committed  some  mistake  when  they  adorned  James 
with  the  title  of  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  yet  it  may  without 
difficulty  be  demonstrated,  that  the  church  in  Jerusalem,  had  a 
bishop  sooner  than  the  other  churches,  and  that  therefore  the  epis- 
copal dignity  had  its  origin  in  that  city."— (Jtfos/icm  Com.  De  Rebus 
Christ,  p.  135.) 

No  mail's  authority  is  of  any  value  with  us  ;  but  facts  and  sound 
arguments  have  great  weight.  James  \vas  an  apostle,  and  therefore 
was  not  a  bishop  in  the  official  sense  of  that  term.  The  argument 
derived  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  is  stated  by  bishop  R.  in 
terms  so  general  and  vague  that  it  calls  for  no  refutation.  Other 
writers  on  his  side  have  adverted  to  particulars  ;  for  instance  to 
the  council  held  on  occasion  of  the  deputation  from  Antioch,  Acts 
XV.  But  a  slight  examination  will  convince  any  one  that  this  is  a 
slender  support  indeed  for  a  building  as  high  as  that  of  prelacy.  The 
argument  is  founded  on  the  speech  of  James,  "  wherefore  my 
sentence  is,  &c.;"  and  this  is  thought  to  be  a  judicial  sentence,  pro- 
nounced ex  cathedra.  But  it  is  no  such  thing.  James,  according 
to  the  true  force  of  the  original,  did  no  more  than  give  his  opinion  ; 
as  others  had  done  before  him.  This  opinion  pleased  the  other 
Apostles  and  Elders,  and  it  was  adopted.  This  is  all  that  can  be 
gathered  from  Hie  words  used  by  James. — But  it  is  wonderful 
that  in  this  case,  it  has  not  occurred  to  the  advocates  of  prelacy, 
that  the  question  here  to  be  decided,  respected  a  people  >vho  wero 


Meviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence.  S9 

out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  bishop  James.  The  case  was  brought 
up  from  Antioch.  Was  there  no  bishop  in  that  great  city  ?  Or  is 
it  pretended  that  James  was  bishop  of  Antioch  ? — There  is  no  end 
to  the  mistakes  of  men,  who  have  formed  their  opinions  respecting 
the  constitution  of  the  primitive  church  under  the  influence  of  high 
church  notions  and  practices  ;  and  then  undertake  to  judge  of  the 
times  of  the  Apostles  by  their  own.  The  episcopate  of  James  is 
the  mere  dream  of  such  men  as  the  fabulosus  Hegesippus,  the 
Pseudo-Ignatius,  and  others  who  are  fond  of  catching  at  every  fig- 
ment to  support  a  hierarchy,  which  has  no  foundation  in  scripture. 
We  shall  in  our  next  number  proceed  to  show  by  decisive  testi- 
mony, that  in  the  primitive  church  presbyters  exercised  the  pow- 
ers which  are  supposed  to  distinguish  bishops  from  them  as  an  ec- 
clesiastical order.  And  we  intend  to  hold  bishop  R.  to  his  word: 
not  rigidly  indeed,  but  as  far  as  it  is  in  the  heart  of  gentle  spirited 
presbyterians  to  do  the  thing.  "  IfJ"  says  his  right  reverence, 
"you  can  produce  from  the  records  of  ecclesiastical  history,  for 
fifteen  centuries,  a  single  instance  of  presbyterian,  as  contradistin" 
guished  from  Episcopal  ordination,  in  any  acknowledged  branch  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  I  surrender  the  cause  I  maintain,  and  with  it, 
every  claim  or  title  to  covenanted  mercy."  It  is  only  the  first 
part  of  the  surrender  to  which  we  intend  to  hold  the  bishop.  As 
for  the  rest,  worlds  would  not  tempt  us  if  we  could,  to  take  from 
him  his  title  to  covenanted  mercy,  or  weaken  in  the  least  possible 
degree  his  hope  of  salvation.  But  we  wish  to  fix  the  bishop  on  a 
foundation  much  firmer  than  that  on  which  he  relies.  He  places 
his  confidence  on  the  assurance  which  man  gives;  on  episcopal 
authority  and  succession;  on  something  communicated  by  a  bishop 
to  give  validity  to  the  sacraments,  and  make  them  seals  of  God's 
truth  and  faithfulness.  Now  all  these  fabuloe  aniles,  these  anti- 
quated notions,  we  wish  bishop  R.  to  surrender,  together  with  his 
DissentC'phobia,  and  come  and  take  his  seat  with  us  at  the  table  of 
our  common  Lord,  and  rely  on  the  word  of  God,  the  scriptures  of 
eternal  truth,  for  his  hopes  of  salvation.  Not  that  we  would  per- 
suade bishop  R.  to  become  a  presbyterian:  this  we  never  do:  be= 
sides,  we  think  that  the  bishop  would  not  submit  with  very  good 
grace  to  the  discipline  of  a  presbytery,*  after  he  has/e^<  episcopal 

*  Bishop  U.  thinks  that  the  exercise  of  discipline  on  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  where  all  are  equal,  is  absurd  and  impossible.  In  page  68,  he  thus 
expresses  himself:  "  If  then,  as  is  asserted  by  you,  Episcopal  power  and 
authority,  in  the  proper  acceptation,  belonged  to  these  Presbyters  of  the 
Ephesian  Churcli,  in  virtue  of  their  office  as  such—it  is  most  unaccountable, 
that  not  the  remotest  allusion  is  made  to  it  by  St.  Paul,  at  this  particular 
and  very  proper  time.  And  still  more  unaccountable,  how,  if  they  pos- 
sessed it,  they  could  have  exercised  it  upon  each  other.  If  all  had  equal 
right  to  rule,  to  judge  of  doctrine  and  conduct,  to  censure  and  absolve— 
who  were  to  obey  and  submit  themselves  ?  The  very  idea  of  such  a  state 
of  things  is  so  absurd  as  to  refute  this  argument  in  favour  of  parity."  Are 
not  all  members  of  Congress  equal  in  power  and  authority  ?  And  cannot 
they  discipline  and  rule  each  otlier.  Are  not  all  members  of  a  presbytery 
in  a  state  of  perfect  official  equality  ;  and  if  a  presbyter  teaches  false  doc« 
trine,  or  commits  immoral  actions,  is  there  no  authority  that  can  be  exercised 
on  him  .?  Why  could  not  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  do,  what  presbyterians 
can  and  actually  do  perform  every  time  the  occasion  calls  for  it  ?  W^ 
IS 


100  Jtetiiexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  yiudication  and  Vejtnu. 

power.  And  we  are  not  without  the  hope  of  ensuring  bishop  R's 
high  commendation  and  thanks  for  our  most  exemplary  moderation, 
when  wc  shall  have  compelled  him  to  feel  that  he  must  make  the 
unconditional  surrender  to  which  he  has  pledged  himself  before  the 
world.  If  we  prove,  what  we  are  sure  that  we  can  do,  the  bishop 
is  bound  to  surrender  all  his  claims  and  hopes  of  covenanted  mercy. 
Now  instead  of  this,  we  shall  only  insist  on  his  surrendering  his 
dislike  of  Dissenters,  his  episcopal  pride — and  acknowledging  that 
he  is  superior  to  his  presbyters  not  by  the  appointment  of  God, 
but  solely  by  the  custom  of  the  church.  Let  him  do  this,  and  we 
will  freely  let  him  off",  for  the  rest. 

We  shall  now  endeavour  to  show  that  bishop  R.  is  bound,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  terms,  unconditionally  to  surrender  his  cause. 
Our  readers  will  bear  in  mind  the  pledge  which  he  has  given. 

But  we  wish  first  to  make  a  remark  or  two,  the  justness  of  which 
will,  at  first  sight,  appear  to  every  intelligent  mind. 

Bishop  R.  cannot,  no  man  on  earth  can  show  from  any  record 
of  the  Church  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  any  trace  whatever, 
<i^ -A  second  ordination.  Be  it  remembered  that  according  to  bishop 
R.  ordination  impresses  a  character  ;  and  precisely  that  character 
which  is  intended  by  the  ordaining  minister.  One  act  of  ordination 
impresses  the  character  of  a  deacon,  and  nothing  else  :  a  different 
act  impresses  the  character  of  a  priest ;  and  a  third  (called  conse- 
cration) impresses  the  character  of  a  bishop.  Now  according  to 
the  whole  history  of  the  church,  for  nearly  three  centuries,  there 
is  nothing  which  even  hints  at  Episcopal  consecration.  When  a 
man  was  once  ordained  to  the  gospel  ministry,  nothing  that  man 
could  do,  made  him  more  a  minister,  or  gave  him  any  higher  power 
than  he  possessed  by  his  induction  to  office.  Episcopal  consecra- 
tion is  the  device  of  later  ages.  If  bishop  R.  denies  this,  let  him 
from  the  undisputed  records  of  the  early  ages  produce  evidence  of 
the  fact. 

2.  In  all  languages,  changes  take  place  in  the  meaning  of  words. 
The  signification  of  a  term  which  has  undergone  a  change,  is  not 
to  be  retained  after  the  change  has  taken  place.  Thus  if  the  word 
bishop  has  a  different  meaning  now,  from  that  which  it  had  in  the 
first  three  centuries  ;  the  modern  meaning  ought  not  to  be  given  to 
the  term,  when  used  by  writers  of  the  primitive  ages.  Otherwise 
these  vvriters  will  be  made  to  say  what  they  do  not  mean.  This  is 
too  plain  to  admit  of  illustration  or  proof. 

We  now  proceed  with  our  proof  of  Presbyterial  ordination. 
And  in  the  first  place  we  appeal  to   Scripture.     Timothy  was  or- 

should  have  thought  that  bishop  R.  knew  better,  from  his  esqierience  in  the 
christian  society  of  which  he  was  first  a  member.  But  however  this  may 
be,  it  is  laughable  indeed  that  he  should,  with  the  presbyterian  church  ex- 
isting before  his  eyes,  gravely  produce  such  an  argument  as  this  against 
Tninisterial  parity.  One  of  the  old  objections  against  presbyterianism  has 
been  founded  on  the  rigor  of  its  discipline.— One  of  the  practical  argu- 
ments against  episcopacy,  as  the  dispute  has  been  conducted  in  England,  is 
derived  from  the  want  of  discipline ;  while  one  of  the  boasts  of  this  society, 
at  least  in  this  country,  is  its  liberalift/.  We  do  \yish  that  bishon  R.  would 
TWd  Churth  History. 


Htview  c>f  liishop  Havenscroft's  i^indkaiion  and  Defence.  101 

Gained  '*  with  the  laying  on  of  tlie  hands  of  the  Presbytery;"  1st 
Tim.  ivr,  14.     On  this  fact  we  wish  to  offer  a  few  remarks. 

1.  This  is  the  only  instance  recorded  in  Scripture,  of  the  specific 
manner  in  which  7ninisters  of  the  gospel  were  ordained  in  the  days 
of  the  Apostles.  The  fact  of  ordination  is  several  times  mentioned; 
but  no  other  reference  is  made  to  the  manner  in  which  it  is  done. 

2.  The  Greek  word  (TtpeGSvTepiov)  presbytery,  according  to 
the  uniform  usage  ofthe  ancients,  signifies  a  company  of  Presbyters; 
that  is  of  persons  who  in  New  Testament  language  sustained  the 
office  of  presbyter, 

3.  The  Greek  phrase  here  employed,  signifies  as  has  been  ob» 
served  elsewhere  the  manner  in  which  Timothy's  ordination  was 
performed. — o  eSo^  coi — fisld  im^sasQg  TCdv  j^eipQv.  K.T.A. 
It  would  be  easy  to  prove  this  by  the  citation  of  numerous  passages 
from  the  New  Testament,  and  also  from  profane  authors.  Acts  ii,  29. 
eiTtetv  (letd  TtappyjCi'a^f  expresses  for  instance  the  manner  of 
Speaking,  with  boldness.  [See  also  v,  26.  xvii,  11.  xxiv,  3.  2  Cor. 
vii,  15.  Tit.  ii,  15,  &c.  &c.]  If  then  the  language  ofthe  New  Tes- 
tament can  in  any  case  convey  a  definite  meaning,  it  is  certain  that, 
in  this  instance,  the  thing  done  was  done  by  the  Presbytery.  The 
pretence  that  ordination  was  performed  by  the  Apostle;  and  that 
the  presbyters  present,  only  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy  in  con- 
currence with  the  Apostle,  betrays  ignorance  of  the  usage  of  the 
language,  and  of  the  proper  force  of  the  words  here  employed,  of 
which  a  Biblical  critic  ought  to  be  ashamed.  Here  then  is  a  deci- 
sive instance  of  ordination  by  a  Presbytery,  on  which  we  would  be 
willing  to  rest  our  whole  cause. 

But  to  put  the  matter  beyond  all  controversy,  we  will  undertake 
to  show  that  there  was  no  ordination  performed  in  the  church  at  all 
from  the  days  ofthe  Apostles  until  at  least  250  years  after  Christ 
by  any  but  presbyters.  During  the  first  two  centuries,  the  mod- 
ern distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  was  utterly  unknown 
to  the  church.  The  exclusive  power  of  ordination  claimed  by  dio- 
cesan bishops  is  a  usurpation  in  the  church,  supported  by  nothing 
but  decrees  of  councils,  and  contrary  to  the  whole  practice  of  the 
pure  primitive  age  of  Christianity.  But  here  we  plainly  give  no- 
tice, that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  disputed,  and  manifestly  in- 
terpolated works,  such  as  Ignatius'  Epistles,  the  Canons  and  Consti= 
tutions  of  the  Apostles,  &c.  We  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  wit- 
nesses,  whose  credibility  has  been  impeached — -not,  as  some  sup- 
pose, because  they  decide  the  point  against  us;  but  because  vve 
cannot  bring  ourselves  to  place  confidence  in  Testimony  of  this 
character. 

The  point  which  we  wish  to  establish,  was  stated  in  terms  suffi- 
ciently explicit  by  Jerome,  the  most  learned  of  the  fathers,  nearly 
fourteen  hundred  years  ago.  In  his  Commentary  on  Titus,  he 
boldly  maintains  that,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  presbyter  and 
bishop  were  the  same;  and  states  it  as  a  fact  known  in  his  day,  that 
presbyters  were  inferior  to  bishops  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  and 
not  by  the  appointment  of  the  Lord. 

"Haec  propterea,  ut  ostenderejnus  apud  veteres  eosdom  fuis^e 
Presbyteros  quos  et  Episcopos.    Paulatim  vero,  ut  dissionum  plan» 


104  Review  oj'  Bishop  Bavcnscrqft^s  Vtnilic(itio)i  and  Defence^ 

taria  evellerentur,  aJ  unum  omnen  solicUudinem  esse  delatam.-— 
Sicut  ergo  Presbyteri  sciunt  se  ex  ecclesiae  consuctudine  ei,  qui  sibi 
propositus  fuerit,  esse  subjccto?,  ita  Episcopi  noverint  se  magis  con- 
suetudine  quam  dispositionis  domiiiiciB  veritate,  Presbyteris  esse 
majores."  He  also  asserts  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  at  Alexandria,  from 
the  days  of  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  the  bishops  Heraclas  and  Dyo- 
nysius,  the  presbyters  always  chose  one  of  their  number,  placed  him  in 
a  higher  station,  and  named  him  bishop.  But  the  bishop  of  North 
Carolina  may  see  this  whole  matter  more  fully  considered,  in  the 
works  of  the  learned  Selden,  (vol.  ii,  419—527.)  who  gives  a  trans- 
lation of  "Eutychius's  Origin  of  the  Church  at  Alexandria."  Accord- 
ing to  the  account  given  by  this  writer,  it  is  clear  that  there  were 
for  about  250  years,  no  bishops  at  Alexandria,  but  such  as  were 
ordained  by  presbyters. 

But  this  matter  is  merely  adverted  to  in  passing,  because  Euty- 
chius  substantially  agrees  with  Jerome.  This  Hither, bishop  Ravens- 
croft  is  pleased  to  call  our  favourite — we  suppose  because  his  testi- 
mony is  so  decisive  in  favour  of  Presbyterianism.  But  if  the  bishop 
will  consult  as  high  an  Episcopalian  as  Dr  Cave,  he  ivill  find  what, 
from  the  early  part  of  the  5th  century,  down  to  the  present  day,  has 
been  the  character  of  Jerome  among  the  learned.  He  has  been 
often  called,  "the  teacher  of  the  world,"  "the  most  learned  of  the 
fathers,"  &c.  &c. — so  that  we  have  reason  enough  for  our  favour- 
itism. Let  us,  however,  go  back  as  near  to  the  times  of  the  Apos- 
tles as  possible.  The  undisputed  writings,  which  have  come  down 
to  us  from  this  early  period,  may  be  mentioned  in  the  following 
order. 

1.  The  epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus  to  the  Corinthians.  Clement 
^3  a  writer  of  the  first  century.  He  lived  with  the  Apostles.  His 
tirst  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  is  universally  admitted  to  be  genu- 
ine, and  is  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  precious  relics  of  ecclesias- 
tical antiquity.  The  letter  of  this  apostolical  man  was  occasioned 
by  the  grievous  contentions  which  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Co- 
rinthian Church.  It  was  addressed  to  the  whole  body  of  the  faith- 
ful at  Corinth.  Either,  then,  there  was  no  bishop  at  Corinth, 
or  Clement  was  as  negligent  of  "clerical  propriety"  as  Paul 
had  been  before  him.  But  we  will  let  that  pass.  Bishop  R.  is 
obliged  to  admit  that  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  ministers  of 
the  gospel  ordained  and  settled  in  the  churches,  were  styled  indif- 
ferently, presbyters  or  bishops.  The  case  was  precisely  the  same 
in  the  time  of  Clement  of  Rome.  For  he  says  (chap  xlii.  pa.  170. 
Cotebr.  Edit,  Le  Clerc.)  "They  (the  Apostles)  preached  in  coun- 
tries and  cities,  and  appointed  their  first  converts,  after  they  had 
proved  them  by  the  spirit,  as  bishops  and  deacons  of  those  who 
would  afterwards  believe.  Nor  was  this  a  new  device,  for  from 
old  times  it  had  been  written  concerning  bishops  and  deacons;  for 
thus  saith  the  scripture,  "I  will  appoint  their  bishops  in  righteous- 
ness, and  their  deacons  in  faith."  Here,  be  it  remarked,  are  only 
two  kind  of  church  officers.  In  chap,  xliv,  he  says  "And  our  Apos- 
tles knew  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  there  would  be  contention 
on  account  of  the  episcopal  office;  and  for  this  reason,  having  receiv- 
ed perfect  foreknowledge,  they  appointed  the  aforementioned,  and 


lleview  oj  Bishop  Uavenscroft' s  Vindicaiioii  and  Defence.  105 

in  doing  so,  they  gave  the  rule  of  succession,  that  when  they  should 
fall  asleep,  other  approved  men  might  succeed  to  their  ministry.— 
We  do  not  therefore  think  it  right,  that  they  should  be  cast  out  of 
their  office,  who  were  appointed  by  them,  (i.  e.  the  Apostles)  or  af- 
terwards by  other  approved  men,  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
church;  who  have  ministered  to  the  flock  of  Christ,  blamelessly, 
%vith  humility,  and  not  in  a  niggardly  manner;  and  who  have  for  a 
long  time;  rc-ceived  a  good  report  from  all  men.  For  our  sin  will 
not  be  smidi,  if  we  eject  from  the  episcopacy  those  who  have  per- 
formed their  service  in  a  holy  and  blameless  manner.  Happy  the 
presbyiers,  who  have,  before  this,  finished  their  course,  who  have  ob- 
tained a  fruitful  and  perfect  disclmrge!  For  they  will  never  fear 
that  any  will  cast  them  out  from  the  place  prepared  for  them." — 
The  attentive  reader  cannot  fail  to  perceive  how  exactly  these 
words  of  an  apostolical  man,  accord  with  the  view  which  we  have 
given  by  the  orgHnizalion  of  the  primitive  church.  The  Jlpoi'tle — 
presbyters  appointed  persons  duly  qualified  as  religious  teachers,  an3 
ministers  of  tables,  in  all  the  churches.  The  teachers  set  over 
particular  churches,  were  bishops — presbrjters,c-d\led  indiscriminately 
by  either  name,  but  most  commonly  by  the  latter.  They  were 
bishops,  because  they  had  the  oversight  of  a  particular  church; 
but  yet  so  common  was  the  title  o(  Presbyter,  that  it  is  given  to  men 
who  were  ejected  from  the  episcopal  office.  Clement,  after  ad- 
verting to  the  fact  that  the  Corinthians  had  deprived  some  of  their 
bishops,  exclaims  happy  the  presbyters  who  have  finished  their 
course,  and  who  never  will  fear  that  any  will  deprive  them.  The 
episcopal  office  then  according  to  Clement  is  precisely  the  office 
held  by  a  presbyter,  when  he  is  set  over  a  particular  church.  And 
the  rule  of  succession  as  laid  down  by  the  Apostles  is  obvious. — 
These  presbyters  appoint  others,  with  the  approbation  of  the 
church. 

In  chap,  xlvii.  pa.  174,  this  venerable  writer  says,  "Beloved,  it 
is  shameful,  yea  very  shameful  to  be  heard,  and  unworthy  of  your 
conversation  in  Christ,  that  the  most  firmly  established,  and  ancient 
church  of  the  Corinthians  should,  on  account  of  one  or  two  per= 
sons,  rise  up  against  the  Presbyters." — He  then  adverts  to  the  re- 
proach thus  brought  on  them,  and  the  name  of  Christ;  exhorts 
them  to  take  away  this  reproach;  gives  a  very  striking  description 
of  christian  charity;  and  breaks  out  thus — "Who  then  among  you 
is  generous,  who  is  compassionate,  who  is  full  of  love?  Let  him 
say — if  sedition  and  discord,  and  schisms  have  arisen  on  my  account, 
I  depart,  1  go  away  wherever  you  wish,  and  do  what  is  required  by 
the  people;  only  let  the  flock  of  Christ  live  in  peace,  with  the 
Trcsbyters  placed  over  it.  ^isla  t(dV  KO^UJla^SVQV  7tp£Cy/?l>7£pWV." 
And  in  the  Ivii.  chap,  he  says,  "Do  ye  therefore,  who  have  laid 
the  foundation  of  this  disturbance,  be  subject  to  the  presbyters,  and 
be  disciplined  to  repentance."  pa.  178.. 

Now  we  ask,  does  any  thing  in  all  that  Clement  says,  bear  the 
least  semblance  of  diocesan  episcopacy?  And  where  was  the  bishop 
of  Corinth  when  Clement  wrote?  Not  a  trace  of  him  is  to  be  found 
in  this  letter — not  a  word  of  him  in  the  letters  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 


104   Ueview  of  Bishop  liavenscroft's  yindkatio/i  and  Defence. 

But  every  thing  in  full  accordance  with  gemdne  Presbyterianism. — 
Presbyters  appoint  others  to  the  sacred  office,  with  the  consent  of 
the  people.  It  is  most  generally  believed  that  this  epistle  of  Cle- 
ment was  written  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  9G,  after  the  persecu- 
tion of  Domitian. 

2.  The  Epistle  of  Poly  carp.  This  is  supposed  by  Lardner  to  have 
been  written  about  the  year  108.  It  is  admitted  to  be  genuine,  and 
has  received  high  praise  from  both  ancients  and  moderns.  The 
writer  was  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  may  well  be  called 
an  apostolical  man.  This  letter,  contrary  to  our  bishop's  notions  of 
clerical  propriety,  is  addressed  to  the  "Church  of  God  which  dwells 
at  Philippi."  It  is  from  "Polycarp  and  the  Presbyters  with  him." 
In  the  whole  of  it,  there  is  not  a  word  about  bishops.  But  there  is 
mention  of  two  officers  in  the  church,  presbyters  and  deacons.  "We 
who  know  that  God  is  not  mocked,  ought  to  walk  worthy  of  his  com- 
mandment, and  according  to  his  will;  and  in  like  manner,  the  dea- 
cons ought  to  be  unblamable  in  the  sight  of  his  holiness."  And  in 
the  same  chapter  he  says  "wherefore  it  behoves  you  to  abstain  from 
all  these,  (carnal  desires)  and  be  subject  to  the  presbyters  arid  dea- 
cons, as  unto  God  and  Christ."  And  in  the  next  chapter  it  is  sub- 
joined, "Let  the  presbyters  be  full  of  compassion,  merciful  to  all; 
restoring  wanderers,  visiting  the  sick,  not  negligent  of  the  widow, 
the  orphan,  and  the  poor,  but  always  providing  what  is  good  before 
God  and  man,  abstaining  from  all  anger,  respect  of  persons,  and  un- 
just judgments,  far  from  avarice,  not  ready  to  believe  any  thing 
against  any  one,  not  too  severe  in  judgment,  as  knowing  that  all  are 
sinners."  So  the  apostolical  Polycarp  speaks  of  presbyters,  giving 
not  the  slightest  hint  that  officers  superior  to  them  in  the  church 
existed  in  the  church. 

3.  Proceeding  in  the  course  we  have  adopted,  we  next  come  to 
the  fragment  of  Papias,  preserved  by  Eusebius.  But  on  this  we 
forbear  to  oifer  any  remark,  save  this  only,  that  vvhere  he  uses  the 
terms  employed  to  designate  officers  in  the  ancient  church,  he  uni- 
formly speaks  of  presbyters,  and  not  of  bishops.  See  Eusebius  iii, 
39,  or  Lardner  i,  336,  4to. 

4.  In  the  next  place  we  refer  to  Justin  the  martyr.  He  suffered 
about  the  year  160;  and  is  generally  supposed  to  have  presented  his 
apology  about  twenty  years  before.  In  describing  the  order  of 
Christian  worship,  he  mentions  only  two  officers,  the  one  who  pre- 
sided (Ttpoecliog,)  and  the  deacon.  The  presiding  officer  is  mani- 
festly the  pastor  or  bishop  of  a  particular  congregation;  the  presid- 
ing presbyter.  The  deacons  are  not  preachers  of  the  word,  but 
distributers  of  the  sacramental  emblems;  as  is  clear  from  the  words 
of  Justin.  "On  the  day  called  Sunday,  there  is  a  meeting  together 
in  one  place  of  nil  (believers)  who  dwell  either  in  the  city  or  the 
country;  and  as  far  as  time  permits,  the  Commentaries  of  the  Apos- 
tles or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read.  When  the  reader  has 
finished,  he  who  presides  (o  TtposG'tug)  gives  an  admonition,  and  an 
exhortation  to  imitate  these  excellent  things.  Then  we  all  rise  up 
together,  and  offer  prayer.  When  we  have  finished  praying,  bread, 
Tvine  and  water  are  brought;  and  he  who  presides  presents  sup- 


Ueview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft's  Vindication  and  Defence.  105 

plications  and  thanksgiving,  to  the  best  of  his  ability;  and  the  peo- 
ple consent  by  saying,  Amen.  There  is  then  a  distribution  of  those 
things,  in  relation  to  which  thanks  were  given.  They  who  are  pre- 
sent participate,  and  a  portion  is  sent  to  those  who  are  absent  by 
the  deacons."  After  this,  he  says  there  is  a  collection  made,  and  the 
amount  deposited  with  the  presiding  officer,  who  relieves  orphans, 
widows  and  the  sick  poor.  Now  Justin  manifestly  intends  this  to  be 
a  full  and  fair  account  of  the  order  and  worship  of  every  Christian 
congregation.  It  was  of  the  utmost  importance,  in  this  case,  that  he 
should  "tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth." 
Any  deviation  or  concealment  would  have  been  easily  detected,  and 
highly  injurious  to  the  cause,  which  he  was  pleading  before  a  hea- 
then ruler.  In  the  days  of  Justin,  then,  we  are  not  warranted  in 
the  belief  that  there  were  three  orders  in  the  christian  ministrj^ 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  The  evidence  lies  all  the  other 
way.  In  Justin's  days,  too.  there  could  have  been  no  prescribed 
liturgy;  for,  each,  TtpOfCTTWg,  presiding  presbyter,  prayed  to  the 
best  of  his  ability. 

5.  Our  fifth  witness  is  Irenjens.  His  works  may  be  dated 
between  the  years  170  and  180.  They  came  to  us  chiefly  under 
the  grievous  disadvantage  of  a  barbarous  translation  ;  the  original 
being  lost,  except  some  fragments  preserved  by  Eusebius  and  others. 
In  one  respect,  however,  the  testimony  in  favour  of  ministerial  par- 
ity is  strengthened  by  this  circumstance.  The  translation  must 
have  been  made  some  time  after  the  original  was  written.  But  as 
ive  recede  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  we  find  a  gradual  rise  in 
the  claims  and  pretensions  of  the  clergy.  The  translator  then 
would  not  be  likely  to  express  himself  so  strongly  in  favour  of  the 
primitive  equality,  as  Irenaeus  himself  did.  He  was  also,  if  one 
may  judge  from  his  style,  an  African  ;  and  any  thing  from  that 
quarter,  after  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  in  support  of  parity, 
may  be  considered  as  extorted  by  the  force  of  truth. 

If  we  are  not  mistaken,  Irenaeus  first  introduces  the  subject  on 
which  we  wish  for  his  testimony,  in  the  third  book.  His  great  ob- 
ject here  is  to  show  that  the  church  held  the  true  doctrine,  in  op* 
position  to  the  heretics.  To  this  end  he  shows  in  the  first  chapter 
of  this  book,  that  the  church  received  the  gospel  from  the  Apostles, 
In  the  second  chapter  he  says  that  the  truth,  delivered  by  the  Apos- 
tles, was  preserved  by  the  successio7is  of  the  Presbyters.''  "Cum 
autem  ad  earn  iterum  traditionem,  quae  est  ab  Apostolis,  quae  per 
successiones  Psesbyterorum  in  Ecclesiis  custoditur,  provocamus  eos  ; 
adversantur  traditioni,  Dicentes  se  non  solum  Presbyteris,  sed 
etiam  Apostolis  existentes  sapientiores,  sinceram  invenisse  verita- 
tem."  "But  when  we  bring  them  back  again  to  the  doctrine,  which 
was  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  and  is  preserved  in  the 
churches  by  the  successioiis  of  the  Presbyters,  they  set  themselves 
in  opposition  to  this  tradition,  saying  that  they,  being  wiser  not  only 
than  the  Presbyters,  but  even  than  the  Apostles  themselves,  have 
found  out  the  pure  truth." 

This  is  very  near  the  close  of  the  2d  chapter,  and  in  the  one 
immediately  following,  the  writer   undertakes  to   show   that  the 


iOS  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl*s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

church  had  preserved  the  truth  taught  by  the  Apostles,  by  giving 
the  succession  of  ministers  in  the  two  churches  of  Rome  and 
Smyrna.  But  the  succession  of  Presbyters  previously  mentioned,  is 
in  the  3d  chapter  called  the  succession  of  Bishops :  and  we  have  then 
a  list  of  the  names  of  Linus,  Anacletua,  Clemens,  (the  one  who 
wrote  the  epistle  to  the  Corinthians)  Euarestus,  Alexander,  Sixtus, 
&c.  all  of  whom  stand  in  the  catalogue  of  Popes  among  Catholics  ; 
of  diocesan  bishops  among  high  churchmen  ;  but  by  Irenaeus  are 
called  indifferently  bishops  or  presbyters.  Or  according  to  the 
presbyterian  platform,  ivhich  seems  to  agree  exactly  in  this  point 
with  Irenaeus,  when  spoken  of  indefinitely  as  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
they  were  called  presbyters  ;  but  when  their  relationship  to  one 
particular  church  was  in  view,  they  were  designated  bishops. 

Again  ;  in  chap,  xliii  of  Book  the  4th,  Irenaeus  says,  "Wherefore 
they  who  are  in  the  church,  ought  to  obey  the  Presbyters,  who  have 
successio7i  from  the  Jipostles,  as  we  have  shown  ;  who  together  with 
the  succession  of  the  episcopacy,  have  received  the  certain  gift  of 
the  truth,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  father."  This  suc- 
cession of  Presbyters,  is  in  the  very  next  sentence  denominated 
principal.  And  in  the  following  chapter  (xliv.)  he  speaks  of  Presby- 
ters, elated  with  the  pride  of  the  highest  honour — principalis  cou' 
sessionis  tumore  elati.  Also  in  the  close  of  this  chapter,  he  says, 
"the  church  nourishes  Presbyters  like  those  of  whom  the  prophet 
speaks,  •'!  will  give  your  rulers  in  peace,  and  your  bishops  in  righ- 
teousness." In  Book  v.  chapter  20,  this  father  begins  by  saying 
that  all  the  teachers  of  heretics,  are  greatly  inferior  to  the  bishops, 
to  whom  the  apostles  committed  the  churches  ;  and  in  a  few  senten- 
ces affirms  that  "they  who  leave  the  church,  bring  a  charge  of  ig- 
norance against  the  holy  Presbyters.'''' 

Eusebius  in  Book  v.  chap.  20.  24,  has  preserved  two  fragments  of 
letters  from  Irenaeus,  which  deserve  particular  notice.  In  the  one 
to  Florinus,  we  find  the  following  :  "These  doctrines,  they  who 
were  Presbyters  before  us,  and  who  where  disciples  of  the  Apostles, 
by  no  means  delivered  to  you."  Then  referring  to  Polycarp, 
whose  disciple,  it  seems  Florinus  had  been  at  the  same  time  with 
Irenaeus,  he  says  "And  I  can  testify  before  God,  that  if  that  blessed 
and  Apostolical  Presbyter  had  heard  any  such  thing,  he  would  have 
stopped  his  ears,  and  after  his  usual  manner  have  exclaimed,  good 
God  !  for  what  times  hast  thou  reserved  me,  that  1  should  have  to 
bear  such  things." — This  apostolical  Presbyter,  was  the  bishop  of 
Smyrna.  Clearly  therefore,  with  Irenaeus,  there  was  no  difference 
between  the  presbyter  and  bishop. 

But  the  next  letter  is  perfectly  decisive  on  this  subject.  It  was 
addressed  to  Victor,  bishop  of  the  church  in  Rome,  now  by  the 
Catholics  called  pope  Victor.  The  subject  is  a  controversy  res- 
pecting the  observance  of  the  day  at  present  called  Easter.  "The 
Presbyters  who  preceded  Soter,  and  who  presided  over  the  church, 
which  you  now  govern,  I  mean  Anicetus,  and  Pius,  Hyginus  and 
Telesphorus  and  Sixtus,  did  not  observe  this  festival,  on  the  day  in 
which  the  bishops  of  Asia  observed  it,"  &c.  Again  :  "But  the 
Presbyters  who  preceded  you,  although  they  observed  it  not,  yet 
eent  the  Eucharist  to  those  who  did  observe  it."    Once  more  :  he 


Meviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence,  107 

says  when  Polycarp  came  to  Rome,  "he  could  not  persuade  Anice- 
tus  to  adopt  the  same  observance  ;  for  he  said  that  the  custom  of  the 
Presbyters,  who  went  before  him,  ought  to  be  retiiined." 

Now  all  these  persons,  Soter,  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Teles- 
phorus,  and  Sixtus  are,  in  modern  times,  honoured  with  the  title 
of  Popes  by  some  ;  others  make  them  diocesan  bishops  ;  while 
honest  old  Irenaeus,  again  and  again  calls  them  Presbyters;  and 
says  that  they  were  Presbyters,  who  governed  the  church  at 
Rome.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  word  Presbyter  is  here  used 
in  its  official  sense.  And  it  is  equally  evident  that  there  was,  in  the 
days  of  Irenseus,  no  higher  officer  in  the  church  than  a  Presbyter. 
There  is  no  getting  over  this  conclusion.  If  then  any  ordinatioa 
took  place  at  all ;  and  on  this  subject  there  can  be  no  doubt,  it  must 
have  been  performed  by  Presbyters.  Thus  far  the  usage  of  scrip- 
ture language  was  kept  up  in  the  church,  and  we  find  no  order  of 
men  superior  to  those  who,  as  bishop  R.  admits,  were  in  the  New 
Testament  styled  indifferently  bishops  or  presbyters.  The  church 
had  not  in  170  years  found  out  a  name  for  that  other  "order," 
which  the  prelate  of  North  Carolina  found  it  so  difficult  to  designate 
by  any  appropriate  scriptural  name. 

In  tracing  the  history  ofchurch  government  through  the  writings 
of  the  ancient  Fathers,  he  who  begins  at  the  beginning  and  reads 
with  no  object  but  to  find  the  truth,  can  scarcely  fail  to  notice  the 
following  particulars, 

1.  Officers,  with  extraordinary  powers,  were  appointed  for  the 
extraordinary  occasion  of  introducing  a  new  form  of  religion  :  these 
were  the  Apostles  and  their  assistants,  the  Evangelists,  who  had  no 
fixed  charge,  but  the  world  for  the  theatre  of  their  labours. 

2.  In  the  churches  reared  up  by  them,  persons  were  appointed 
to  the  office  of  religious  teacher,  who  in  the  New  Testament  are 
called  indiscriminately,  bishops  and  presbyters.  There  is  reason 
to  believe,  that  in  all  the  important  churches,  more  than  one  teach- 
er was  appointed  at  the  same  time.     See  Phil,  i,  !. 

3.  The  undisputed  writings  of  the  early  ages,  put  it  beyond  all 
doubt  that  until  about  the  close  of  the  second  century,  religious  in- 
structors were  denominated,  precisely  as  they  were  in  the  New 
Testament,  indifferently  bishops  or  presbyters — so  that  the  bishop 
was  a  presbyter  ;  and  the  presbyter  was  a  bishop,  without  any  dif^ 
ference  of  order  or  authority. 

4.  These  presbyters,  in  their  collective  capacity,  were  denomi- 
nated a  presbytery,  and  to  them  was  committed  the  whole  govern- 
ment of  the  church.  They  were  appointed  for  this  purpose  with 
the  consent  of  the  people. 

6.  In  every  meeting  of  the  presbytery,  there  was  a  president, 
chairman,  or  moderator,  as  is  the  case  in  all  bodies  of  this  kind. — ■ 
He  was  in  early  times,  most  usually  designated  by  the  term  TtposG-- 
?£<>$  or  6  ngoialaiJ£Vog.  This  usage  is  derived  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament. See  Rom.  xii,  8.  1  Thesg.  v,  12.  1  Tim.  v,  17.  But 
it  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  the  primitive  christians,  that  this 
moderatorship  conferred  any  rank,  or  constituted  any  thing  like  a 
different  order,  It  was  a  case  exactly  like  that  in  our  free  institu- 
14 


lOS  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt* s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

tions,  where  the  speaker  in  a  legislative  assembly,  the  chairman  of 
a  corporation  meeting,  the  moderator  of  a  presbytery,  &c.  is  of  the 
same  order,  with  all  his  fellow-members. 

6.  It  it  easy  to  see,  about  the  close  of  the  second  century,  and 
the  beginning  of  the  third,  some  change  in  the  usage  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal writers.  The  change  is  this—the  word  (emCiXOTtog)  bishop, 
which  for  two  hundred  years  had  been,  as  we  have  seen,  used  in- 
discriminately with  (npsG^vJspog)  elder,  becomes  somewhat  more 
appropriated  to  the  presiding  presb}'ter.  But  in  all  the  writings 
belonging  to  this  period,  it  is  manifest  that  the  bishop  is  no  more 
than  the  presiding  presbyter  of  each  particular  church  ;  and  so  the 
word  is  to  be  understood,  when  it  occurs  in  writers  of  this  age. 

7.  In  process  of  time  to  repress  divisions  and  factions,  it  seems  to 
have  been  agreed  that  the  presiding  presbyter  or  bishop  should 
possess  powers,  not  granted  toother  presbyters — such  as  the  power 
of  baptizing,  of  ordaining,  and  the  like.  So  that  presbyters  could 
rot  baptize  without  the  permission  of  the  bishop.  But  this  step 
only  increased  the  power,  but  did  not  elevate  the  rank  of  the  bishops. 

8.  It  was  not  until  the  latter  end  of  the  third,  and  the  first  part 
of  the  4th  century,  that  we  find  any  real  distinction  in  point  of  or- 
der between  bishops  and  presbyters.  But  when  bishops  were  thus 
distinguished,  and  the  church  became  allied  with  the  state,  prelati- 
cal  pride  and  insolence  grew  with  rapid  strides.  Yet  in  the  fifth 
century,  the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers  had  the  courage  and  hon- 
esty to  affirm  that  the  presbyters  knew,  and  the  bishops  ought  to 
know  that  the  superiority  of  the  latter  to  the  former  was  founded  on 
the  custom  of  the  church,  and  not  on  the  appointment  of  the  Lord. 

These  remarks  will  show  that  the  word  bishop  is  to  be  interpret- 
ed in  three  different  ways,  according  to  the  time  when  it  is  used. 

1.  In  the  New  Testament,  and  the  undisputed  writings  of  the 
Fathers  to  about  the  close  of  the  second  century,  bishop  and  pres- 
byter mean  the  same  office. 

2.  For  nearly  a  century  after  that  lime,  bishop  means  the  pre- 
siding presbyter  of  a  particular  church. 

3.  From  about  the  beginning  of  the  4th  century  down,  the  term 
is  generally  used  to  designate  a  minister  of  the  gospel  superior  to 
presbyters.  It  is  very  important  to  make,  and  keep  in  mind  these 
distinctions  :  otherwise,  we  shall  suppose  the  ancient  writers  to 
mean  something  which  they  never  thought  of  at  all.  There  have 
been  bishops  ever  since  the  church  of  Christ  was  organized — but  a 
bishop  in  the  first  and  second  centuries,  is  as  unlike  a  modern  pre- 
late, as  old  Cincinnatus  was  unlike  one  of  the  Ccesars ;  or  as  a  plain 
Scotch  presbyter  is  unlike  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury. 

But  now  we  will  proceed  with  our  examination  of  the  ancient 
writers — although  enough  has  already  been  done,  to  oblige  bishop 
R.J  according  to  his  pledge,  to  surrender  all  his  pretensions. 

6.  Our  sixth  witness  is  Clemens  Alexandrinus.  He  lived  about 
the  close  of  the  second,  and  beginning  of  the  third  century.  This 
Father  does  not  directly  speak  of  the  order  of  the  church,  but  in 
several  places  incidentally  mentions  the  various  offices  in  the  chris- 
tian society.     In  his  references  to  this  subject,  there  is  no  evidence 


Meview  of  Bishop  RavenscrofVs  Vindicaiion  and  Defence^  109 

of  any  distinction  of  rank  among  religious  teachers  ;  but  indeed  the 
contrary.  It  was  about  his  time  that  we  find  the  first  intimation 
that  the  title  of  bishop  was  beginning  to  be  appropriated  to  the  pre- 
siding presbyter  of  a  particular  church.  But  the  very  terms  em- 
ployed by  him,  show  that  "  clerical  propriety"  was  but  little  re- 
garded in  his  day.  For  he  speaks  in  one  case  of  bishops,  presby- 
ters and  deacons  ;  and  in  another,  of  presbyters,  bishops,  and  dea- 
cons, not  caring  who  came  first.  But  in  every  other  passage  of  his 
works,  relating  to  this  subject,  we  find  a  mode  of  speaking  exactly 
accordant  with  that  which  had  been  used  before.  In  Pasdag.  i.  99.  D, 
Edit.  Sylburgii.  1641,  he  says,  "  we  are  shepherds,  who  govern 
the  churches,  after  the  pattern  of  the  good  shepherd  ;  and  you  are 
the  sheep."  Again,  Lib.  iii.  248.  B.  Speaking  of  ladies  who  wear 
curls  of  other  people's  hair,  he  asks,  "  On  whom  does  the  Presby- 
ter lay  his  hand  ;  and  whom  will  he  bless  1  not  the  woman  thus 
adorned,  but  the  hair  of  some  other  person,"  &c.  We  pretend  not 
to  decide  what  is  meant  by  the  imposition  of  hands  here.  It  was 
certainly  an  act  of  ministerial  authority,  so  far  to  bestow  a  benedic- 
tion. In  what  respect,  then,  did  this  presbyter  differ  from  a  bishop? 
The  next  passage  to  be  referred  to,  occurs  in  Lib.  iii.  264.  C^ 
"  Very  many  other  precepts,  appertaining  to  particular  persons,  are 
written  in  the  holy  books  ;  some  to  elders,  some  to  bishops,  some 
to  deacons,  and  some  to  widows."  It  admits  of  a  question  here, 
whether  the  author  uses  the  first  term  in  its  general  or  official  sig- 
nification. It  will  scarcely  be  pretended  that  the  widozvs  mentioned 
last,  were  officers  in  the  church  ;  and  why  may  not  elders  in  the 
first  place,  mean  old  men?  Clement  was  very  conversant  with  the 
writings  of  Paul,  and  why  may  he  not  have  had  in  mind,  the  fifth 
chap,  of  1st  Timothy,  where  elder  means  an  old  man,  ver.  1.  and  a 
minister  of  the  gospel,  ver.  19  ?  But  if  no  stress  ought  to  be  laid 
on  this,  the  next  passage  is  very  decisive.  Strom,  iii.  464.  D. 
The  subject  here  is  marriage  ;  and  Clement  strongly  maintains  that 
every  one  must  be  the  husband  of  one  wife,  "  whether  he  be  pres- 
byter, or  deacon,  or  layman"  XQCV  TtpgCT/^i'lgpog  yj ,  XOLV  ^idxovog, 
xav  TMiXog.  These  words  certainly  are  designed  to  include  all 
sorts  of  men  in  the  church  ;  and  if  presbyter  was  not  regarded  by 
him  as  the  same  with  bishop,  we  can  in  no  way  account  for  his 
leaving  out  67tL(yxo7tog.  The  reader  will  observe  that  in  pa.  459. 
C.  and  472.  D,  this  writer  does  use  the  word  eTtiCTxOTtOJ,  bishop,  foc 
the  presiding  officer  of  a  church  ;  while  in  the  passage  just  cited, 
he  uses  presbytery  for  the  whole  clergy.  Here  is  decisive  evidence 
of  our  doctrine  :  while  no  difference  of  order  is  noted,  the  word 
bishop  was  beginning  to  bo  restricted  in  its  application.  In  pa. 
667.  B.  (Strom,  vi.)  he  describes  a  true  presbyter,  and  adds,  "al- 
though he  should  not  on  earth  be  honoured  with  ihc  first  seat,  yet 
he  shall  sit  on  the  four  and  twenty  thrones,  judging  the  people,  as 
John  says  in  the  Revelation."  Here  is  a  plain  and  incontrovertible 
reference  to  the  presiding  elder  mentioned  by  preceding  writers. 
And  in  pa.  700.  D.  he  speaks  of  the  offices  of  the  church  in  rela- 
tion to  their  objects  ;  of  which  one  is  to  promote  emendation  of  lifej 
tbe  ether  is  merely  the  rendering  of  obedience  ;  antj  he  says  that 


110  Heview  of  Bishop  Rat' en$cr oft* s  Vindication  and  Defmce. 

the  former  of  these  belongs  to  the  Elders ;  the  latter,  to  the  dea- 
cons. There  is  no  distinct  office  here  assigned  to  bishops.  They 
are  not  mentioned  at  all.  On  the  whole,  there  was  no  such  thing 
as  episcopal  order,  superior  to  that  of  presbyters,  in  the  days  of  this 
learned  Father. 

7.  In  the  next  place,  we  take  up  TertuUian.  This  Father,  who 
lived  till  near  A.  D.  220,  does  not  furnish  much  on  the  subject  now 
before  us.  But,  taking  all  that  he  says  together,  it  is  apparent  that 
the  form  of  the  church,  in  his  day,  was  just  what  we  have  previ- 
ously stated.  There  was  no  difference  of  order  among  the  clergy 
but  the  presiding  elders  were  very  commonly  called  bishops.  He 
sometimes,  however,  as  he  wrote  in  Latin,  uses  the  term  antistes^ 
which  exactly  answers  to  the  ngoiolag  of  Justin  and  other  preced- 
ing writers.  We  are  assured  that  presbyters  presided  in  their  reli- 
gious assemblies;  that  the  presidents  alone  baptized  and  adminis- 
tered the  Lord's  supper;  and  that  he  did  this  three  times  a  week. 
This  president  he  sometimes  calls  bishop;  and  the  succession  of 
such  bishops  he  traces  back  to  the  Apostles.  It  would  be  tedious 
to  continue  the  quotation  of  particular  passages  from  every  writer 
that  comes  in  course.  We  therefore  content  ourselves  with  the  as- 
surance that  every  affirmation  here  made  is  capable  of  the  most 
rigid  proof.  The  Edition  of  TertuUian,  from  which  we  were  pre- 
pared to  make  extracts,  is  that  of  Rigaltius.     Paris  1661. 

8.  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  suffered  martyrdom,  as  is  gen- 
erally believed,  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  258.  He  affords  a 
striking  example  of  a  man  pious,  zealous,  yet  rather  too  fond  of 
power,  and  strongly  desirous  to  increase  the  authority  of  bishops; 
but  withal  too  honest  to  pretend  that  all  power  was  in  his  hands. 
II  is  easy  to  see,  by  comparing  his  writings  and  sentiments,  with 
these  previously  noticed,  that  the  term  bishop  was  more  and  more 
appropriated  to  the  presiding  presbyter;  and  that  the  claims  of  the 
president  of  the  presbytery  were  considerably  extended.  Yet 
still,  the  bishop  was  no  more  than  parochial  bishop — His  authority 
did  not  extend  beyond  a  single  congregation;  and  he  could  do 
nothing  without  the  consent  of  his  fellow-presbyters.  The  follow- 
ing references  to  the  Oxford  Edition  of  Cyprian's  works  1682, 
will  fully  bear  out  these  assertions,  pp.  168,  T.  202,  E.  It  is  not 
allowed  to  any  but  the  bishop,  or  president  of  the  church  to  bap- 
tize. Nos  tantum  qui,  domino  permittente,  primum  baptisma  cre- 
dentibus  dedimus,  &c. — Quod  nunc  quoque  apud  nos  geritur,  ut  qui 
in  Ecclesia  baptizantur,  prcepositis  Ecclesia  offerantur,  et  per  nos- 
tram  orationem  ac  manus  impositionem,  Spiritum  Sanctum  conse- 
quantur,  et  signaculo  Dominico  consummentur.  In  instances  too 
numerous  to  be  mentioned,  Cyprian  calls  the  presbyters  of  the 
church  of  Carthage  his  fellow-presbyters.  But  it  is  needless  to 
multiply  words  for  the  proof  of  that  which  is  indisputable;  namely 
that  Cyprian  was  a  parochial  bishop.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
freely  conceded  that  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  as  we  now  have 
them,  a  distinction  is  made  between  the  bishop  and  presbyter, 
which  is  found  in  no  undisputed  writings  before  this  period.  There 
is  indeed  much  reason  to  believe  that  Cyprian  laid  the  foundation 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojt^s  Vindicalion  and  Defence,  Hi 

for  the  establishment  of  a  new  order  in  the  church.  A  statement 
has  been  made  on  this  subject,  which  presents  to  us  every  ap- 
pearance of  truth  and  reason. 

When  a.  presiding  presbyter  was  appointed  in  a  church,  it  was  by 
the  concurrence  of  the  presbytery  and  the  people.  The  presby- 
ters by  no  means  raised  him  to  a  higher  order;  he  was  only  primus 
inter  paris,  the  Jirst  among  equals.  The  whole  authority  of  all 
presbyters,  throughout  the  world,  was  derived  from  the  word  of 
God,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  from  the  appointment  of  Christ. 
But  the  presiding  member  was  raised  to  the  tirst  seat,  and  inducted 
by  his  co-presbyters.  The  case  of  Cyprian,  however,  was  one  of 
singular  character.  His  popular  talents  occasioned  his  election  to 
the  office  of  presiding  presbyter,  or  bi6hop,very  shortly  after  his  con- 
version from  heathenism,  a  considerable  majority  of  the  presbyters 
of  the  church  of  Carthage  opposed  this  election;  probably  because 
they  saw  his  aspiring  disposition.  This  opposition  seemed  to  ex- 
asperate the  bishop  of  Carthage  not  a  little.  His  43d  letter  af- 
fords ample  proof  of  this.  And  he  seems  to  have  set  himself  to 
exalt  the  bishop's  power,  and  depress  the  presbyters  as  much  as 
possible.  From  him  we  first  hear  of  a  new  ordination,  by  which 
a  presbyter  was  raised  to  be  a  bishop.  His  talents  and  influence 
were  great;  and  he  caused  them  to  be  felt  thi'ough  the  whole 
christian  world.  We  cannot  help  attributing  to  him  the  accelera- 
tion of  that  change  in  the  polity  of  the  church,  which  has  pro- 
duced incalculable  mischief  to  the  true  interests  of  religion  through 
many  successive  centuries. 

Yet  after  all  the  efforts  made  by  this  Father  to  enlarge  episco- 
pal power,  much  remained  to  be  done  after  his  day  to  complete  the 
fabric  of  the  hierarchy. 

For  we  find,  near  the  close  of  his  life,  a  letter  written  to  him, 
on  occasion  of  his  dispute  with  Stephen,  bishop  of  Rome,  by  Fir- 
milianus  bishop  of  Cajsarea,  in  which  the  old  doctrine  is  clearly 
stated,  Ep.  Ixxv,  pa.  221.  "Sed  et  ceteri  quique  heretici,  si  se  ab 
Ecclesia  Dei  sciderint,  nihil  habere  potestatis  aut  gratiae  possunt, 
quando  omnis  potestas  et  gratia  in  Ecclesia  constituta  sit,  ubi  prces' 
ident  major es  natu  qui  et  baptizandi  et  manum  imponendi  et  ordin- 
andi/JossicZeni  po<cs?'a<em."  The  sense  of  which  is,  if  heretics  of 
any  kind  separate  themselves  from  the  church  of  God,  they  pos- 
sess nothing  of  power  or  grace;  since  all  power  and  grace  is  seated 
in  the  church,  where  presbyters  preside,  who  possess  the  power  of 
baptizing  and  laying  on  the  hand  and  ordaining.  The  phrase  ma- 
jores  natu  here  must  be  taken  as  a  translation  of  TtpSd^vlspoif  used 
too  in  its  official  sense;  for  old  men  as  such  did  not  preside  in  the 
church;  much  less  did  the  power  here  specified  belong  to  them. 
Baptizing,  laying  on  of  hands,  and  ordaining  were  official  acts.  Fir- 
milianus  then  does  expressly  affirm  that  Elders  had  the  power  of 
ordai7iing. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  detail  farther.  We  have  seen 
that  for  250  years,  presbyters  were  bishops,  and  bishops  were 
presbyters.  About  the  close  of  this  period,  the  change  began 
which  issued  in  the  establishment  of  high  church  principles.  It 
crept  on  slowly  for  a  while;  but  afterwards  made  rapid  increase, 


11£  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence^ 

so  as  to  be  pretty  firmly  established  in  the  4th  and  5th  centuries. 
Had  our  limits  permitted  us  to  make  a  more  complete  deduction^ 
the  evidence  would  have  been  much  stronger. 

The  examination  here  made  of  the  question  before  us,  has  been 
pursued  through  the  original  writers.  Nothing  has  been  taken  oa 
trust,  and  we  have  been  brought  to  our  conclusion  by  a  deduction, 
which  we  conscientiously  believe  to  be  fair.  And  now  we  must 
be  excused  if  we  turn  to  our  "  favourite"  Jerome,  and  compare 
his  account  of  this  matter  with  our  own.  But  we  wish  it  to  be  un- 
derstood, that  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  Jerome's  account  of  the 
church  in  his  own  time.  It  is  readily  admitted  that  between  the 
death  of  Cyprian  in  258,  and  the  days  of  Jerome,  who  died  in  420, 
great  and  injurious  changes  had  taken  place  in  the  order  and  disci- 
pline of  the  church.  At  the  period  of  Jerome's  death  Christianity 
had  been  in  alliance  with  the  imperial  government  of  Rome  for 
nearly  100  years.  We  wish  to  know  what  the  most  learned  of  the 
Fathers,  he  "  whom  all  good  men  loved  and  admired"  testifies  con- 
cerning the  pure,  primitive,  apostolic  church,  and  the  manner  in 
which  its  government  was  changed.  This  information  may  be  ob- 
tained from  his  commentaries,  and  his  celebrated  epistle  to  Eva- 
grius.  There  he  expressly  treats  of  the  very  questions  now  under 
consideration.  In  other  parts  of  his  writings,  he  speaks  of  the 
church  as  it  was  in  his  day,  when  the  primitive  form  was  changed. 
We  hope  to  be  excused  for  giving  the  testimony  of  this  Father  at 
full  length,  because  of  its  importance. 

"  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the  words  of  the  apostle,  in  which  he 
says  '  That  thou  shouldest  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I  had 
appointed  thee'' — Discoursing  in  what  follows  on  the  sort  of  maa 
that  ought  to  be  ordained  presbyter,  he  says,  '  If  any  be  blameless, 
the  husband  of  one  wife,''  4-c.  and  afterwards  he  adds,  *  For  a  bishop 
must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God.^  A  presbyter  therefore  is 
the  same  as  a  bishop;  and  before  there  were,  by  the  instigation  of 
the  devil,  parties  in  religion,  and  it  was  said  by  the  people,  '  I  am 
of  Paul,  and  1  of  ApoUos,  and  I  of  Cephas,'  the  churches  were  gov- 
erned by  the  common  council  of  presbyters.  But  afterwards, 
when  every  one  supposed,  that  those  whom  he  baptized,  belonged 
to  him,  and  not  to  Christ,  it  was  decreed  through  the  whole  world, 
that  one  chosen  from  the  Presbyters  should  be  set  over  the  rest  to 
whom  the  whole  care  of  the  Church  should  belong,  that  thus  the 
seeds  of  schisms  might  be  taken  away.  Should  any  one  suppose 
that  it  is  7ny  doctrine,  and  not  that  of  the  scriptures,  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that  one  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other 
of  office,  let  him  read  again  the  words  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  where  he  says,  "  Paul  and  Timotheus,  servants  of  Jesus 
Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi,  with 
the  bishops  and  deacons,  grace  to  you  and  peace,  &.c."  Philippi  is 
but  one  city  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly  there  could  not  be  more 
than  one  bishop  in  a  city,  as  bishops  are  now  styled.  But  at  that 
time,  they  called  the  same  persons  bishops  and  presbyters,  there- 
fore he  spoke,  without  distinction,  of  bishops  as  presbyters.  This 
may  appear  doubtful  to  some,  unless  it  be  proved  by  additional 
*e£timony.— In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  ia  wiitten,  that  when  the 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence,  313 

Apostle  came  to  Miletus,  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  presby- 
ters o{  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other  things,  he  said,  "  take 
heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  the  Lord,  which  he 
hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood."  Here  take  particular  notice, 
that  on  calling  the  Presbyters  of  one  city,  Ephesus,  he  styled  them 
bishops.''^ 

"  If  any  will  receive  the  epistle  which  is  written  in  the  name  of 
Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  there  also  the  care  of  the  church  is  equally 
divided  among  many,  since  he  writes  to  the  people,  'Obey  the7n  tliat 
have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they  watch  for 
your  souls  as  those  that  must  give  account,  that  they  may  do  it  with 
joy  and  not  with  grief,  for  that  is  unprofitable  for  you.'      And  Peter, 
(called  thus  fi  om  the  firmness  of  his  faith)  in  his  Epistle,  saith,  "the 
Presbyters  which  are  among  you  1  exhort,  who  am  also  a  Presbyter, 
and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the 
glory    that  shall  be  revealed — Feed  the    flock    of  God  which  is 
among  you,  not  by  constraint  but  willingly."     These  things  have  I 
written  for  the  purj)ose  of  showing  that  among  the  ancients,  pres- 
byters and  BISHOPS  were  the  same.      But  that  by  little  and  little, 
(pAULATiM,)  that  the  plants  of  dissention  might  he  plucked  up,  the 
whole  care  was  devolved  on  one.     As  therefore  the  presbyters  know 
4hatthey  are  subjected  to  him  who  is  placed  over  them  by  the  cus- 
tom OF  THE  CHURCH  ;  SO  the  BISHOPS  shoidd  know  that  they  are  superior 
to  presbyters  rather  by  custom,  than  by  any  real  appointment  of  the 
Lord,  (magis  consuetudine,  quam  dispositiones  dominicce  veritate,) 
and  that  they  ought  to  rule  the  church  in  common,  imitating  Moses, 
who,  when  he  might  have  ruled  the  people  of  Israel  alone,  chose 
seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people."     Thus  does  our 
"favourite,"  "  the  most  learned  of  the  Fathers,"  "  the  prince  of 
divines,"  state  the  doctrine  and  the  fact,  in  his  commentary  on  Titus. 
The  celebrated  epistle  to  Evagrius  furnishes  the  following  ex- 
tract.    "  I  hear  that  a  certain  person  has  broken  out  into  such 
folly  that  he  prefers  deacons  before   presbyters,   that   is  before 
bishops  ;   for  when  the  Apostle  clearly  teaches  that  presbyters  and 
bishops  are  the  same,  v.'ho  can  endure  it  that  a  minister  of  tables 
and  WIDOWS  should  proudly   exalt  himself  above  those  at  whose 
prayers  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  made.     Do  you  seek  for 
authority?     Hear  that  testimony,  "  Paul  and   Timothy  servants  of 
Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi, 
with  the  bishops  and  deacons"~Would  you  have  another  example? 
In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paul  speaks  thus  to  the  priests  of  one 
church — "Take  heed  to  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which 
the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops,  that  you  govern  the  church, 
which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.     And  lest  any  should 
contend  about  there   bping  a   plurality  of  bishops   in  one  church, 
hear  also  another  testimony,   by  which  it  may  most  manifestly  be 
proved,  that  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  are  the  same — "For  this 
cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the  things 
that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city  as  I  have  ap- 
pointed thee.     If  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one   wife,  &c. 
For  a  BISHOP  must  be  blaroeless,  as  a  steward  of  God."    And  to 


114   Heview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  VimUcation  and  Defence. 

Timothy — "Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery." 
And  Peter  also,  in  his  first  epistle,  saith,  "The  Presbyters  which 
are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  Presbyter,  &c.  to  rule  the 
flock  of  Christ,  and  to  inspect  it,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly 
according  to  God;"  which  is  more  significantly  expressed  in  the 
Greek;  STUCxOTtDwleg,  that  is  superintending  it,  whence  the  name 
of  bishop  is  derived.  Do  the  testimonies  of  such  men  appear 
small  to  thee?  Let  the  evangelical  trumpet  sound,*  the  son  of 
thunder,  whom  Jesus  loved  much,  who  drank  the  streams  of  doc- 
trine from  our  Saviour's  breast — "The  Presbyter  to  the  elect  lady 
and  her  children,  whom  1  love  in  the  truth." — And  in  another 
epistle,  "The  Presbyter  to  the  beloved  Gains,  whom  I  love  in  the 
truth." — But  the  choosing  of  one  afterwards,  who  should  be  set 
above  the  rest,  took  place  as  a  remedy  against  schism;  lest  every 
one  drawing  the  work  of  Christ  to  himself,  should  break  it  in  pieces. 
For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the  Evangelist  to  Heraclas  and 
Dionysius,  the  bishops  thereof,  the  Presbyters  always  named  one, 
&c."t   [as  given  before.] 

We  deem  it  necessary  to  make  no  comments  on  this  passage.  It 
is  a  plain  statement  of  facts,  and  a  series  of  arguments  founded  on 
these  facts,  which  never  can  be  refuted.  The  history  of  the 
church  for  400  years  bears  out  this  favourite  of  ours,  in  every 
important  particular.  The  truth  of  the  case  may  be  brought  into 
a  nutshell.  In  conformity  with  the  maxims  of  our  Lord,  and  with 
Apostolical  appointment,  the  ordinary  and  perpetual  ministers  of 
the  gospel  were  all  equal — This  continued  until  the  church  began 
to  grow  in  worldly  power  and  influence;  when  the  plan  of  having 
a  number  of  equal  Presbyters  in  one  church,  produced  factions, 
divisions,  and  frequent  schisms — For  the  prevention  of  this  evil 
the  power  of  presiding  Presbyter  was  enlarged,  and  he  was  called 
bishop.  This  advantage  being  given  to  the  president  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, he  used  it  to  raise  himself;  so  that  out  of  this  arrangement, 
diocesan  episcopacy  sprung  up.  In  process  of  time,  the  bishops 
were  thought  to  need  some  head,  and  Metropolitans  were  appoint- 
ed— after  that  Patriarchs;  and  finally  a  Pope.  The  expedient  to 
prevent  schism  turned  out  so  badly,  that  at  the  Reformation,  most 
of  those  who  broke  their  allegiance  to  the  pope,  thought  it  much 
the  best  way  to  return  to  the  primitive  simplicity  of  ancient  times. 
Unhappily  for  us,  the  Reformation  in  England  was  the  work  of  the 
government  and  not  of  the  people.  The  eighth  Harry,  and  queen 
Elizabeth,  took  the  place  of  the  pope,  and  became  heads  of  the 
church,  unfrocking  bishops  with  as  little  ceremony  as  diocesans 
use  towards  their  Presbyters.  But  it  did  not  suit  the  notions  of 
these  Defenders  of  the  Faith,  to  have  the  ancient  discipline  restored. 
The  republican  system  of  Geneva  alarmed  the  jealous  spirit  of 
these  monarchs  and  their  successors;  and  hence  many  features  of 
the  prevalent  polity  were  retained. 

*  This  is  a  rhetorical  description  of  John  the  Apostle. 
f  The  translation  of  this  passage  has  been  borrowed,  with  Veiy  slight  Ver- 
bal alterations,  from  Dr  Miller's  Letters, 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence.  115 

But  now  let  us  look  back  for  a  moment.  The  only  instance  re- 
corded in  the  New  Testament,  of  the  specific  manner  of  ordination 
states  explicitly,  that  the  ceremony  was  performed  by  a  Presby- 
tery.— The  pastors  of  churches,  invested  as  they  were  with  full 
powers  of  government,  were  styled  indifferently  bishops  or  presby- 
ters. In  the  undisputed  writings  of  the  Fathers  for  250  years,  there 
is  no  hint  of  a  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  ;  and 
there  were  no  other  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the  church  :  the 
succession  of  ministers  is  traced  through  them  ;  and  they  are  ap- 
pealed to  as  men  who  preserved  the  apostolical  doctrine. — It  is 
expressly  affirmed  that  they  had  power  of  baptizing,  laying  on 
hands,  and  ordaining. — It  has  been  made  evident,  too,  that  the 
raising  of  men  to  episcopal  superiority  was  an  innovation  on  the 
practice  of  the  church  as  followed  for  250  years.  So  then,  if  there 
was  ordination  at  all,  it  was  done  by  presbyters.  And  now  we 
appeal  to  our  readers,  whether  bishop  R.  is  not  obliged  to  give  up 
his  pretensions.  Nay  more  ; — presbyters  know  (if  we  may  adopt 
in  part  the  language  of  our  favorite  Jerome,)  and  bishops  ought  lo 
know,  that  as  diocesans  they  derive  no  power  of  ordination  from 
the  appointment  of  the  Lord  ;  the  word  of  God  gives  them  no  au- 
thority. Their  whole  ordaining  power,  according  to  the  scriptures, 
is  derived  from  this,  that  they  are  presbyters.  They  are  bishops, 
that  is  they  are  of  a  superior  order,  solely  by  the  custom  of  the  church. 
And  if  our  episcopal  brethren  choose  so  to  manage  their  affiiirs,  as 
to  appoint  one  of  their  presbyters  to  a  higher  station,  and  call  him 
bishop,  entrusting  him  with  the  general  superintendence  of  their 
affairs,  we  are  among  the  last  who  will  say  a  single  word  against  it. 
But  when  men  thus  elevated,  pretend  that  they  have  a  divine  right, 
that  Apostolical  succession  is  in  them  alone  ;  that  all  who  are  sepa- 
rated from  them,  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  to  the  covenants  of  promise  ;  when  they  put  themselves 
forward  as  substitutes  for  the  person  of  Christ,  and  claim  that  au- 
thority, which  since  the  death  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  is  vested 
in  the  word  God  alone,  we  do  think  that  it  is  the  interest  of  the 
whole  church  in  all  its  departments,  that  these  monstrous  preten- 
sions should  be  put  down. 

It  is  due  to  candor  to  say,  that  while  we  have  no  quarrel  with 
Episcopalians  at  all;  and  would  say  nothing  against  that  legitimate, 
episcopacy,  which  owes  its  origin,  and  all  its  authority  to  the  cus- 
tom of  the  church,  we  certainly  do  think  that  the  primitive  minis- 
terial equality  is  by  far  the  safest. 

Before  we  proceed  to  notice  bishop  R.'s  defence  of  his  conduct 
in  regard  to  the  Bible  Society,  there  are  a  few  other  particulars  in 
relation  to  the  Church,  which  claim  our  attention. 

Our  readers  know  that  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops, 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  according  to  this  prelate,  affords  the 
only  means  of  ■verifying  the  Church  of  Christ;  and  indeed  is  essen- 
tial to  its  existence.  Whereas  we  hold  that,  wherever  there  is  a 
society  receiving  the  doctrine  t;iught  by  Christ  and  bis  Apostles, 
and  obeying  his  precepts,  there  is  a  Church  of  Christ;  and  that  the 
system  of  truth  embodied  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  and  given 
to  men  for  their  instruction,  furnishes  means  of  easy  application,  by 
15 


\16  litview  of  Bishop  Ravenscr oft* s  Vindication  and  Defence'. 

which  the  Church  may  be  verified.  The  case  appears  to  us  too 
plain  almost  for  reasoning. — After  the  revolutions  of  1 800  years,  and 
the  violent  changes  which  the  Church  has  undergone;  after  long 
periods  of  barbarian  ignorance  and  superstition;  the  total  loss  of 
many  of  the  works  of  Christian  writers,  and  the  corruption  of  others, 
we  yet  have  the  New  Testament  uncorrupted — There  we  find  the 
truth  in  its  primitive  purity  and  »implicilv.  And  shall  we  turn 
from  this  fountain  of  living  waters  to  a  broken  cistern?  Shall  we 
resort  to  tradition,  and  to  the  most  unsatisfactory  parts  of  ecclesias- 
tical history,  to  ascertain  whether  we  are  warranted  to  hope  for  the 
blessings  which  God  has  promised,  in  his  word,  to  bestow  on  the 
penitent  believer?  Let  us  suppose  that  after  the  lapse  of  twenty 
centuries,  and  a  thousand  changes  in  this  country,  the  Constitutioa 
of  the  United  States  should  be  preserved  without  corruption,  and 
the  people  of  that  future  age  should  elect  a  President  according  to 
the  mode  prescribed  in  that  sacred  instrument,  could  they  not  de- 
termine whether  he  were  duly  authorized  to  administer  the  affairs 
of  the  nation,  without  going  back  through  every  age,  and  ascertain- 
ing whether  the  ruler  of  the  country  had  been  duly  elected,  and  the 
Chief  Justice,  who  administers  the  oath  of  office  duly  appointed  in 
every  case?  And  does  the  President  derive  his  authority  from  the 
Chief  Justice,  who  officiates  at  his  inauguration? 

In  order  to  increase  the  weight  of  the  difficulties,  which  hang  on 
the  bishop's  scheme,  our  Reviewer  referred  to  the  case  which  oc- 
curred at  the  Era  of  the  Reformation.  There  seemed  then,  at  any 
rate,  to  be  a  breach  in  the  succession;  for  the  English  Reformers 
were,  one  and  all  ex-communicated,  and  cut  off  from  the  holy  Ro- 
man Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

Bishop  R.  "mistakes  his  man'"  again,  when  he  supposes  that  this 
was  intended  as  an  argumentum  ad  invidiam — it  was  rather  designed 
ad  hominem,  and  merely,  as  was  said,  to  multiply  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  our  diocesan.  We  advert  to  it  here,  for  the  sake  of  setting 
this  whole  matter  in  what  appears  to  us  a  just  point  of  light,  and 
adding  some  information  which  may  be  useful  to  our  readers. 

In  pa.  50,  bishop  R.  says,  "1  must  take  the  liberty  to  contradict 
your  assertion  that  all  the  world  knows,  that  the  British  Church  re- 
ceived her  orders  from  the  Bishop  or  Pope  of  Rome;  for  that  is  the 
notion  invariably  attached  to  the  words  ^'Church  of  Rome"  by 
ninety-nine  in  the  hundred,  who  either  hear  or  read  them.  Whe- 
ther that  is  the  meaning  you  meant  to  convey,  you  best  know,  but 
in  this  the  most  common  acceptation  of  the  words,  it  is  not  the  fact, 
and  therefore  neither  you,  nor  all  the  world  can  know  any  such 
thing." 

We  are  not  prepared  to  say  what  meaning  ninety-nine  in  the  hun- 
dred attach  to  the  words  "Church  of  Rome;"  but  we  know  that 
our  Reviewer  did  not  mean  by  them,  tke  Pope.  We  do  not  admit 
that  all  the  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons  in  the  world  constitute 
a  Church,  much  less  that  one  man  can  do  so.  No:  we  meant  plainly 
what  we  said.  And  we  humbly  protest  against  this  change  in  our 
words,  made  one  would  think  for  the  pleasure  of  contradiction.  It 
is  nothing  to  us,  nor  to  our  cause,  whether  the  "succession  of  any 
Protestaat  hierarchical  Church  is  derived  through  the  person  of  the 


Review  of  Bishop  KavenscroJV s  Vindication  and  Defence.  1 1 7 

Bishop  or  Pope  of  Rome,"  or  not.  Bishop  R.  may  state  this  mat- 
ter as  he  pleases.  But  he  Si\ys  (pa.  50)  "It  is  not  an  unreasonable 
or  unfounded  assumption — that  in  the  wide  and  extended  boundary 
[query — why  a  wide  boundary?]  of  the  western  Church,  the  or- 
daining power  was  canonically  transmitted  in  the  regular  succession 
from  bishop  to  bishop,  without  contracting  any  fancied  contamina- 
tion from  the  person  of  the  Pope." — On  this  we  have  only  two  very 
brief  remarks  to  otTer.  1.  In  a  case  of  this  kind,  where  our  hopes 
of  salvation  are  concerned,  "assumption"  passes  with  us  for  no- 
thing— We  must  have  proof.  2.  The  person  of  the  Pope  has  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  statements  of  our  Reviewer.  The  bishop  pro- 
ceeds— "With  res|»ect  to  the  succession  of  the  British  Church  in 
particular,  and  so  far  as  that  flows  through  the  Western  Church — 
we  know  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  had,  personally,  little  or  nothing 
to  do  with  it  up  to  the  7th  century;  it  was  an  independent  apostol- 
ical Church  under  its  own  bishops.  Its  connexion  with  the  Church 
of  Rome  commenced  with  Augustine  the  Monk,  who  was  consecra- 
ted the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  not  by  the  bishop  of  Rome, 
but  by  the  archbishop  of  Aries,  in  France,  early  in  the  7th  cen- 
tury." 

We  do  not  stay  to  criticise  language  here.  The  correctness  of 
this  statement  as  far  as  it  goes  is  admitted.  But  the  bishop  gives 
his  readers  a  very  inadequate  view  of  this  part  of  Ecclesiastical 
History.  It  seems  now  to  be  generally  admitted  that  Christianity 
was  introduced  into  Britain  at  a  very  early  period.  Many  believe 
that  Caractacus,  the  Britisli  kiiig,  who  was  carried  captive  to  Rome 
in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  and  after  being  detained  for  several  years, 
was  honorably  dismissed,  carried  the  blessing  of  the  gospel  to  his 
native  land.  These  events  took  place  between  A.  D.  52  and  57; 
about  the  very  time  when  a  Church  was  being  organized  at  Rome: 
long  and  long  before  any  distinction  was  made  between  Bishops  and 
Presbyters.  The  Church  in  Britain  was  then  organized  in  its  pri- 
mitive simplicity,  when  the  pastor  of  every  Church  was  a  bishop. 
Others,  following  the  venerable  Bede,  say  that  the  Church  was 
planted  in  that  Island  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  Re- 
ligion must  have  made  considerable  progress  in  England,  as  appears 
from  the  numbers  who  suffered  under  the  persecution  of  Diocle- 
tian. 

In  the  year  450,  that  country  was  invaded  by  the  Saxons.  The 
consequences  are  well  known — the  original  inhabitants  were  driven 
into  Wales,  and  the  Saxons,  a  pagan  horde,  took  complete  possession 
of  England. 

Augustine  the  Monk  was  sent  by  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  convert 
these  heatnens,  about  the  year  597.  That  lie  was  a  superstitious 
and  very  credulous  man,  is  evident  from  his  letters  to  Gregory, 
bishop  of  Rome,  to  whose  interests  he  appears  to  have  been  devoted. 
Having  obtamed  some  little  success,  and  being  full  of  hope,  he  went 
over  to  France,  and  got  himself  consecrated  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, when  there  was  not  a  single  bishop  in  all  England.  Frooa 
that  time  the  connexion  was  established  between  England  and  the 
Church  of  Rome,  which  continued  until  the  glorious  Reformation. 

In  process  of  time  some  intercourse  t«ok  place  between  the  c^n- 


1 1 S  Review  of  Eislwp  RavtnscroJCs  Vindicaiiou  and  Defence], 

•^erled  Saxons  and  the  native  Christians  in  Wales;  but  it  was  an  in- 
lercourse  of  Contention,  on  the  ground  that  the  Britons  would  not 
submit  to  the  Church  of  Rome. 

But  in  the  meanwhile,  the  establishments  of  the  Culdees  were 
jnade  in  Ireland,  the  Western  islands,  and  Scotland;  and  Mission- 
aries were  sent  by  them  for  the  conversion  of  the  pagans  in  the 
northern  parts  of  England.  The  Culdees  differed  from  the  adherents 
of  Rome  both  in  doctrine  and  order.  As  to  the  former,  the  chai'ac- 
teristic  difference  was,  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  and  a  resolute 
rejection  of  tradition: — as  to  the  latter,  they  were  in  all  important 
respects  Presbyterians.  With  them,  a  man  ordained  to  th..-  vvorv  of 
the  ministry,  was  a  Presbyter;  ,->w\  the  Pre-^byter,  when  appointed  to 
the  Pastoral  Charge,  ivas  <  tiled  a  bishop.  This  ordination  and  ap- 
pointment were  uniformly  made  by  Presbyters.  "  Such  was  tiie  case 
with  respect  to  Corman,  bishop  of  the  Northumbrians,  as  well  as  Ar- 
dan,  Finan,  and  Colmao,  who  succeeded  each  other.  From  the  testi- 
mony of  Bede  it  is  evidentthat,  by  means  of  Scottish  Missionaries, 
and  of  those  whom  they  had  instructed  and  ordained,  not  only  the 
Northumbrians,  but  the  Middle  Angles,  the  Mercians,  and  East 
Saxons,  all  the  way  to  the  river  Thames,  that  is,  the  inhabit, tnl-s  of 
by  flir  the  greatest  part  of  the  country  now  called  England,  were 
converted  to  Christianity,  and  for  some  time  acknowledged  subjec- 
tion to  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  Scots.  The  latter  lost 
their  influence,  merely  because  their  Missionaries  chose  rather  to 
give  up  their  charges,  than  submit  to  the  prevailing  influence  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  to  which  the  Saxons  of  the  West,  antl  of  Kent, 
had  subjected  themselves."  It  was  about  thirty  years  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  missions  of  the  Culdees  among  the  Saxons,  when 
they  were  obliged  to  submit  toRome.  or  retire.  All  but  one  bishop 
chose  the  latter  part  of  the  alternative.  But  among  the  Scots,  they 
continued  for  six  or  seven  centuries,  and  left  an  impression  on  the 
national  character,  which  showed  itself  at  the  Reformation.  This 
glorious  religious  revolution  was  brought  about  in  Scotland  by  the 
people,  in  England  by  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  government.  The 
population  of  Scotland  from  the  beginning  manifested  a  determined 
preference  for  Presbyterian  Parity,  the  government  of  England  for 
Diocesan  Prelacy. 

After  the  retirement  of  the  Presbyter-bishops  from  the  north  of 
England,  the  influence  of  Rome  soon  became  paramount,  and  the 
Church  as  completely  Popish,  as  the  sovereign  Pontiff  could  wish. 
Yet  as  one  of  these  Presbyters  remained  in  his  bisiiopric,  and  as 
there  were  innumerable  multitudes  of  their  converts  from  the  bor- 
ders of  Scotland,  to  the  Thames,  it  is  very  possible  that  a  high 
Churchman,  deriving  through  the  English  succession,  may  meet  in 
his  course,  a  Presbyter  of  Jona,  instead  of  a  Prelate.  But  this  by 
the  way. 

The  Church  of  England  became  as  completely  Popish  as  the 
Church  of  Italy.  But  bishop  R.  thinks  that  even  if  the  Church  of 
England  derived  Orders  directly  from  the  person  of  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  inasmuch  as  he  "had  a  true  succession  from  the  Apostles  of 
Christ,  the  transfer  of  that  succession  was  not  nullified  by  hi? 
usurpations,  or  even  by  his  personal  ungodliness."     It  is  not  at  al! 


Meriew  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqfl's  Vindication  and  Defence.  119 

surprising  that  an  unintelligible  subject  should  cause  a  man  of  con- 
siderable sagacity  to  use  very  strange  language.  To  have  a  true 
succession,  and  to  transfer  that  succession,  are  phrases  which  bishop 
R.  ought  to  explain.  What  sort  of  thing  is  this,  which  a  man  holds, 
and  transfers  to  others?  But  the  bishop  cannot  get  along  here, 
without  a  fling  at  Calvin.  And  as  it  has  been  some  time  since  we 
gave  a  specimen  of  the  style  and  manner  of  our  Prelate,  we  treat 
our  readers  with  the  following  extract.  After  the  sentence  last 
quoted,  he  proceeds  thus, 

"  Among  tlie  many  and  grievous  corruptions  of  that  cluirch,  is  the  succes- 
sion of  its  Bisliops  to  be  so  considered  ?  I  snspcct  if  this  is  properly  searclied 
into,  tlie  mosi  grievous  corruption,  the  succession  of  the  christian  ministry 
from  Christ  s  Apostles,  as  the  root  of  the  ordaining  power  in  the  visible 
churci),  is  capable  of — will  be  found  to  originate  with  those  men,  who  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  usurped  the  power  of  comn  itting  to  others,  what  never 
was  committed  to  themselves — what  tliey  never  possessed  in  any  previous 
age  of  the  church,  and  for  whose  right  to  exercise  the  ordaining  power,  not 
the  shadow  of  a  proof  has  ever  been  produced,  either  from  scripture,  rightly 
interpreted,  or  from  antiquity,  and  whose  author  cannot  be  shown,  ever  to 
liave  had  orders  of  any  kind,  Popish  or  Protestant.  If  such  an  uncertainty 
(not  to  say  breach)  could  be  asserted  of  the  ministerial  succession  through 
the  line  of  Bishops,  as  can  be  asserted  and  assigned  too,  in  the  line  of  Pres- 
byters, so  far  as  Calvin  is  concerned — no  sincere  man  could  contend  for  it. 
He  would  have  to  look  elsewhere  than  in  the  succession  of  the  Western 
Church,  for  that  appointment  of  Heaven  which  alone  gives  certainty  to  the 
church,  as  the  one  undivided  spouse  and  body  of  Christ — To  that  truth,  of 
which  it  is  the  pillar  and  ground— To  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints 
— To  the  sacraments  as  seals  and  pledges  of  covenanted  engagements  and 
means  of  grace — To  the  hope  of  man,  as  founded  on  revealed  mercy,  and 
built  on  tlie  firm  and  unsevered  foundation  of  the  faith  and  order  of  the  gos- 
pel mutually  confirming  each  other." — pp.  51. 

We  have  shewn  that  Presbyters  had,  and  exercised  what  is  called 
the  ordaining  power,  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  to  the  year  of 
Christ  250;  that  they  possessed  and  exercised  it,  in  parts  of  the 
Church  remote  from  the  corruptions  of  Rome,  for  centuries  after- 
ward; and  it  follows  that  the  exclusive  exorcise  of  this  power  by 
diocesan  bishops  is  an  usurpation.  They  have  a  right  to  ordain, 
not  because  they  are  bishops,  but  because  they  are  Presbyters.  And 
(he  exercise  of  this  right  by  Presbyters  in  the  16th  century,  was  a 
bringing  back  of  primitive  order;  placing  the  Church  on  the  true 
Apostolic  foundiition. 

Besides;  the  Presbyterian  Cliurch  does  not  derive,  nor  pretend 
to  derive  any  authority  from  Calvin;  they  do  not  trace  their  ordain- 
ing power  to  him.  They  owe  nothing  to  him  except  what  they  owe 
to  the  Reformers  in  general — save  only  that  they  regard  him  as  the 
most  enliglilened  among  them,  and  amidst  errors  common  to  all,  the 
one  who  most  clearly  understood  the  system  of  truth  taught  in  the 
scriptures.  The  "judicious  Hooker"  says  of  him — "whom,  for 
mine  own  part,  I  think  incomparably  the  wisest  man  that  ever  the 
French  Church  did  enjoy,  since  the  hour  it  enjoyed  him.  His 
bringing  up  was  in  the  study  of  the  civil  law.  Divine  knowledge 
he  gathered  not  by  hearing  or  reading,  so  much  as  by  teaching 
others.  For  though  thousands  were  debtors  to  him,  as  touching 
knowledge  in  that  kind.,  yet  he  to  none  but  only  to  God.  (he  author 


120  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl-s  VmUcation  and  liej'ence. 

of  that  most  blessed  fountain,  the  Book  of  Life,  and  of  the  admirable 
dexterity  of  wit,  together  with  the  helps  of  other  learning,  which 
were  his  guid.'s."  Preface,  pa.  80.  London  edition,  1821. — Again, 
pa.  86,  "We  should  be  injurious  to  virtue  it-^elf,  if  we  did  derogate 
from  them,  whom  their  industry  h;ith  m;ide  great.  Two  things  ot 
principal  moment  there  are  which  have  deservedly  procured  him 
honor  throughout  the  world:  the  one,  his  exceeding  p.iins  in  compo- 
sing the  Institutions  of  Christiari  religion;  the  other,  his  no  less 
industrious  travels  for  exposition  of  Holy  Scripture,  according  to 
the  same  Institutions.  In  which  two  thin<j;s,  whosoever  they  were 
that  after  him  bestowed  tiieir  I  ibor,  he  gained  the  advantage  of 
prejudice  against  them  if  they  gains, lyed;  and  of  glory  above  them 
if  they  consented."  To  as>ail  the  reput.ition  of  this  great  man,  is 
now  thought  by  many  the  way  to  raise  themselves.  One  consola- 
tion is,  that  this  commonplace  railing  carries  its  own  condemnation 
with  it;  because  it  carries  evidence  that  the  revilers  of  Calvin  are 
ignorant  of  his  life  and  writings.  They  retail  only  the  second-hand 
reproaches  of  old  enemies  of  the  Reformation,  We  cannot  think  it 
necessary  to  employ  time  in  proving  that  Calvin  was  ordained  to 
the  Ministry. 

Bishop  R.  proceeds  in  hi?  usual  style,  and  remarking  that  the 
power  claimed  by  the  Pope  was  unlawful  power,  maintains  that  this 
does  not  nullify  the  power  rightfully  and  lawfully  possessed  by  him. 
And  he  thinks  that  it  is  worthy  of  himself  and  his  cause  to  say 
"Certainly,  sir,  you  hiow  that  it  is  a  maxim  of  the  soundest  reason, 
though  I  doubt  whether  you  -will  ackno7isledge  it,  that  usurped  power 
cannot  pass  into  lawful  authority."  We  mark  this  sentence  simply 
for  the  sake  of  letting  our  readers  occasionally  see  the  spirit  of  the 
book  we  are  reviewing.  It  abounds  with  offensive  things  of  this 
sort,  which  would  greatly  irritate  men  of  a  different  spirit  from  ours; 
but  which  our  imperturbable  good  humor  enables  us  to  pass  over 
without  an  angry  feeling. 

The  bishop  goes  on  to  observe  that  the  Pope's  supremacy  was 
an  usurpation;  and  that  his  brother  bishops  had  a  perfect  right,  to 
resume  their  independence  of  character,  when  they  had  discover- 
ed the  corruptions  on  which  this  antichristian  domination  was  built 
up  ;  and  then  proceeds  thus, 

«« While  therefore  Bishop  Ravenscroft  would  not  admit  the  ordainingr  or 
any  other  power,  of  an  excommunicated  and  deposed  Bishop,  he  would 
yet  take  the  liberty  to  examine  and  determine  wlietlier  sucli  exconimunica- 
tionand  deposition  were  lawfully  and  regularly  pronounced,  and  thereupon 
decided  for  himself.  Nothing  like  a  superiority  of  spiritual  power  or  au- 
thority is  known  or  owned  among  christian  Bishops,  fhe  Episcopate  is 
one,  of  which  each  Bisiiop  holds  a  part.  This  jiart  is  equal  in  each,  and  in- 
cludes all  powers  ovigimilly  annexed  to  the  officf  by  its  founder,  "tlie  shepherd 
and  Bishop  of  our  souls."  These  original  powers  do  not  include  the  tre- 
mendous power  of  excommunicating  each  other— no  single  Bishop  can  ex- 
ercise it  towards  another  Bishop  — where  it  becomes  necessary  to  resort  to 
it,  it  must  be  the  act  of  ihat  particular  body  or  church,  to  which  the  ofiend- 
•ing  Bishop  belongs,  and  if  regularly  and  canonically  pronounced,  will  be 
respected  by  the  church  catholic.  But  if  founded  upon  usurped  power,  or 
uncanonically  and  irregularly  pronounced,  it  cannot  rescind  and  annul  the 
power  conferred  on  a  Bishop  or  Bishops,  by  their  regular  and  canonical 
consecration.    And  this  is  a  necessary  consequence  from  the  very  nature  and 


Htvitw  of  Bishop  RavenserofVs  Vindicalion  and  'Defence.  121' 

Fundamentals  of  society,  or  associated  individuals,  whether  the  purpose  of 
their  association  be,  civil  or  rehgious.  If,  for  example — the  Bishop  and 
Clergy  of  the  diocese  of  Norlh-Carolina,  should  undertake  to  fulminate  a 
Bull  of  excommunication  against  a  particular  Bishop,  or  against  all  the 
American  Bishops — would  it  in  any  way,  or  in  the  judgment  of  any  sound 
mind,  be  entitled  to  respect,  or  considered  as  at  all  affecting  their  lawful 
power  and  authority?  And  prenst-l)  of  tlie  samt-  worth,  is  the  excommuni- 
cation of  the  reforming  Bistiops,  clergy  and  people,  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  his  consistory  of  C;»rdmals.  It  was  a  mere  nullity,  sanctioned  by  no 
principle  of  reason  or  religion,  and  is  of  no  avail,  even  to  a  contender  for 
parity,  in  assigning  it  as  a  breach  in  the  apostolical  succession  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church." — pp.  52. 

We  really  respect  the  ingenuitj  and  ability  displayed  in  this 
part  of  bishop  R's  book;  and  sincerely  give  him  our  praise  for 
managing  his  argument  here  vvith  admirable  dexterity.  Still,  how- 
ever, in  our  judgment,  he  has  not  relieved  his  doctrine  of  succes- 
sion from  the  difficulty  started  by  our  Reviewer.  The  Church  is 
one — says  bishop  R.  and  the  Episcopate  is  one;  of  which  each 
bishop  holds  an  equal  part;  [no  matter  how  many  or  how  {ey/."] 
Here  then,  we  observe  by  the  vvay,  our  bishop  is  a  decided  advo- 
Gate  oi parity ;  as  fierce  for  it  as  any  Presbylei  i.m.  But  the  origi- 
nal powers  belonging  to  bishops  do  not  include  the  tremendous 
power  of  excommunication — '■'■thh  must  be  the  act  of  that  particular 
body  or  church,  to  which  the  offending  bishop  belongs.^''  So  then 
there  is  a  church,  as  well  as  the  church.  But  we  wish  to  know 
Avhat  is  meant  by  a  church  here — Is  it  a  company  of  faithful  men, 
believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus?  Or  is  it  a  body  of  clergymen,  with- 
out a  bishop?  Or  is  it  a  number  of  bishops?  But  we  would  ask, 
'how  is  this  particular  Church  constituted,  and  its  limits  fixed,  so  as 
to  determine  the  extent  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction?  It  must  be 
either  by  a  submission  to  the  civil  |)ower,  and  a  compliance  with 
their  prescriptions  ;  or  by  the  voluntary  consent  of  those  who  con- 
stitute the  Church.  The  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  North  Carolina  is  coextensive  with  the  boundaries  of  the 
State;  because  is  was  agreed  by  Episcopalians  that  it  should  be  so. 
— It  is  so  in  relation  to  the  general  convention  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States.  Sure  we  are  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment does  not  require  that  any  regard  should  be  paid  to  geographi- 
cal limits,  in  constituting  Churches.  In  England,  as  far  as  the 
Church  is  not  a  creature  of  the  State,  the  submission  of  the  bishops 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  is  a  matter  of  agreement;  and  it 
is  this  voluntary  association  which  brings  the  bishops  and  clergy 
within  the  reach  of  the  Canons  of  tiie  Church — Otherwise,  why 
should  not  the  acts  of  one  part  of  the  Catholic  Church  bind  another 
universally?  Well;  for  centuries  prei  eding  the  Reformation,  that 
branch  of  the  Church  winch  was  in  England,  by  its  own  voluntary 
consent  was  a  part  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  had  fully  embraced  all 
its  doctrines,  and  acknowledged  the  Pope  as  possessing  authority 
over  all  other  bishops  ;  as  now,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  has 
supreme  spiritual  authority  in  England.  There  was  a  general  con- 
sent of  this  kind  through  the  whole  of  what  was  then  called  the 
Church.  In  England  when  Henry  VIII,  began  his  work,  a  majority 
of  the  bishops,  and  almost  the  whole  body  of  the  inferior  clergy 


122  Sevieru  of  Bishop  RavenscrofVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

were  violently  opposed  to  the  measure;  and  maintained  their  alle- 
giance to  Rome.  Henry  assumed  the  Pope's  place  as  supreme 
head  of  the  Church  in  his  dominions  :  Cromwell,  (a  layman)  was 
his  vicegerent,  and  accomplished  in  the  King's  name  a  considera- 
ble part  of  the  work  of  Reformation,  such  as  it  was  in  that  day. — 
At  length  he  who  was  acknowledged  chief  hishop,  proceeding  ac- 
cording to  the  Canon  law,  then  submitted  to  by  the  Christian  world, 
and  with  the  hearty  concurrence  of  almost  all  the  bishops  in  the 
world,  excommunicated  the  bishops  of  England.  And  to  this  day 
the  bishops  of  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  &c.  kc. 
acknowledge  the  validity  of  this  sentence  of  excommunication.  On 
the  same  principles,  then,  on  which  a  sentence  of  excommunication 
pronounced  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  on  a  bishop  say  of 
Llandaff  would  be  held  valid  by  the  whole  body  of  English,  Irish 
and  American  Bishops,  may  the  validity  of  the  sentence  of  the  Pope 
be  maintained. 

But  our  argument  here  may  be  made  very  brief.  England  was 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  part  of  the  Romish  Church.  Now 
that  Church  was  either  true  or  f;ilse.  If  true;  that  is,  if  the 
Church  of  Rome  really  constituted  the  Church  of  Christ;  then  this 
excommunication,  pronounced  by  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  his  Car- 
dinals, with  the  concurrence  of  almost  all  the  bishops  in  the  world, 
does  seem  to  be  a  valid  excommunication.  But  if  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  not  true,  that  is  no  Church  of  Christ;  then  what  is 
called  the  Church  of  England,  being  an  integral  part  of  this  Church, 
submitting  to  all  its  disciphne,  and  receiving  nW  its  doctrine,  cannot 
be  considered  a  true  Church,  and  of  course  had  no  valid  orders  at 
the  Era  of  the  Reformation. 

This  was  felt  to  be  a  very  great  difficulty  at  that  time.  Some  of 
the  very  wisest  and  best  men  engaged  in  that  work,  were  satislied 
that  the  church  of  Rome  was  not  a  church  of  Christ.  Indeed  this 
is  fully  declared  in  the  Book  of  Homilies  set  forth  in  the  days  of 
Edward  VI  and  Elizabeth,  and  referred  to  in  the  xxxvth  article  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  as  containing  "a  godly  and  wholesome  doc- 
trine. See  "the  second  part  of  the  Sermon  for  Whitsunday," — pp. 
293,  4.  American  edition,  and  particularly  the  following  sentence; 
"Now  if  you  will  compare  this  with  the  church  of  Rome,  not  as  it 
was  in  the  beginning,  but  as  it  is  at  present,  and  as  it  hath  been  for 
the  space  of  nine  hundred  years  and  odd,  you  shall  well  perceive 
the  state  thereof  to  be  so  far  wide  from  the  nature  of  the  true 
church,  that  nothing  can  be  more."  This  church  was  every  where 
the  same.  Every  false  doctrine  maintained  at  Rome  was  received 
in  England  ;  there  was  every  where,  the  same  corruption  of  the 
clergy,  the  same  oppression  of  the  people,  the  same  fierce  spirit  of 
cruelty.  And  what  though  it  was  not  from  the  Pope,  that  the  Eng- 
lish prelates  derived  their  ordination,  it  was  from  the  church  of 
Rome,  fully  as  corrupt,  as  alien  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  in  Eng- 
land as  in  Italy.  If  the  church  was  so  far  wide  from  the  nature  of 
a  true  church,  that  nothing  could  be  more  so,  the  departure  was 
just  as  great  in  one  country  as  in  another.  English  ordination  up 
to  the  time  of  the  Reformation  was  popish  ordination  ;  and  it  is 
not  possible  for  any  dissenter  to  be  farther  from  the  true  church, 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscrojf  s  Vindication  and  Defence.  1 24 

than  the  HomiHes  describe  the  Romish  church  to  be.  And  if  u 
false  church  can  give  true  orders,  then  a  pious  presbytery  cer- 
tainly raay,  as  well  as  an  ungodly  bishop. 

But  on  the  other  side,  most  of  the  Enghsh  bishops  in  the  days  of 
Henry,  were  apprehensive  of  the  canonical  power  of  the  Pope. 
These  difficulties  led  the  excellent  Cranmerto  maintain  an  opinion, 
for  which,  were  he  under  the  authority  of  the  bishop  of  North 
Carolina,  we  have  no  doubt  he  would  be  degraded.  If  bishop  Bur- 
net is  to  be  credited,  or  rather,  if  he  has  not  falsified  the  ecclesias- 
tical documents  of  the  church,  that  great  reformer,  when  primate  of 
all  England,  maintained  that  ordination  or  consecration  was  not 
necessary  to  constitute  the  episcopal  character,  but  that  election  by 
christian  people,  or  appointment  liy  a  christian  prince  is  suflicient. 
Is  not  this  pretty  strong  evidence  that  the  difficulty  which  we  press 
on  bishop  K.  was  felt  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land ?  As  for  us,  we  still  think,  that  according  to  bishop  R's  prin- 
ciples, if  the  Roman  Catholic  church  was  a  true  church,  then  the 
Reforming  bishops  of  England  were  canonically  excommunicated  ; 
and  if  it  was  not  a  true  church,  then  the  ordination  received  by  the 
English  bishops  was  not  valid. 

A  particular  case  may  illustrate  our  view  of  this  subject  on  Epis- 
copal principles.  Let  us  suppose  that  bishop  R.  were  by  common 
consent  made  Archbishop  of  North  America,  and  the  canons  of  the 
church  modified  to  suit  that  state  of  things.  Let  us  farther  suppose 
that  some  bishop,  not  for  private  reasons,  but  in  the  sincerity  of  his 
heart  should  be  devoted  to  Bible  Societies  on  the  "no  comment 
principle."  But  before  this.  Archbishop  R.  had  influence  enough 
to  procure  the  adoption  of  a  canon  condemning  these  societies. 
Well,  the  offending  bishop  is  summoned  to  appear  in  the  Archepis- 
copal  court,  to  answer  for  his  breach  of  the  law.  He  refuses  to 
appear  ;  and  is  deprived  and  excommunicated  for  contumacy — Is 
he  not  canonically  excommunicated  ? 

But  since  we  are  called  to  notice  difficulties  of  this  kind,  there  is 
another,  which  bishop  R.  ought  to  clear  up,  when  he  writes  ano- 
ther book.  We  have  before  stated  the  facts,  that  in  England,  the 
Reformation  was  not  carried  on  by  the  Church,  but  by  the  civil 
power.  Indeed  the  whole  authority  spiritual  and  temporal  was 
assumed  by  the  King.  Bishops  were  appointed  by  his  letters 
patent,  and  commissions  were  taken  out  accordingly.  If  we  are  not 
greatly  mistaken,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VllI, these  commissions  were 
taken  out  by  the  year.  It  is  certain  that  Cranmer  supposed  his 
commissions  to  have  expired  with  the  death  of  the  King  who  ap- 
pointed him;  and  that  he  refused  to  act  on  the  accession  of  Edward 
V'l,  until  reappointed. 

When  Mary  came  to  the  throne,  all  the  bishops  who  refused  to 
follow  the  Court  in  their  return  to  Rome,  were  deprived,  and  a  new 
set  appointed.  In  the  short  reign  of  this  bloody  bigot,  popery  was 
so  firmly  seated  in  the  high  places  of  the  Church,  that,  on  the  ac- 
cession  of  Elizabeth,  there  was  only  one  bishop  in  England  wil- 
ling to  crown  her  Queen  of  England.  As  for  the  other  Clergy,  to 
the  number  of  more  than  9000,  they  were  Protestants  under  Ed- 
16 


124  Meview  of  Bishop  Eavenscrofi^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

ward,  good  Catholics  under  Mary,  and  Protestants  again  under  Eli- 
zabeth. 

The  articles  of  Religion  too  were  enacted  by  Parliament,  in  op« 
position  to  the  opinions  and  exertions  of  a  number  of  the  bishops. — 
in  a  word,  "the  Church  of  England  is  really  a  Parliamentary  Church 
— it  depends  entirely  upon  the  acts  and  authority  of  Parliament  for 
its  very  essence  and  frame.  The  qualifications  of  its  ministers, 
their  power  to  officiate,  the  manner  in  which  they  are  to  adminis- 
ter the  sacraments,  are  all  limited  and  prescribed  by  Parliament ; 
and  this  authority  which  first  made  can  alone  alter  and  new  make  it; 
can  abolish  or  add  to  its  articles  or  rites  according  to  its  pleasure, 
even  though  the  whole  body  of  bishops  and  clergy  should  ever  ko 
much  dislike  or  protest  earnestl}'  against  it." 

Farther  yet;  so  much  is  the  Church  the  creature  of  the  state, 
that  all  the  bishops  in  England,  with  all  their  apostolical  powers, 
dare  not  consecrate  a  new  bishop  witliout  the  authority  of  the  King; 
nor  raise  a  foreigner  to  that  sacred  office  without  an  act  of  Parlia- 
ment. Accordingl}',  ivhen  there  was  some  hesitancy  in  acknowl- 
edging the  episcopal  dignity  of  good  old  bishop  Seabury  of  Connec- 
ticut, and,  (that  the  true  succession  might  be  secured  in  this  coun- 
try,) application  was  made  to  the  English  bishops,  it  was  beyond 
their  power  to  do  any  thing  until  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed, 
giving  them  a  legal  capacit}'  to  comply  with  this  request. 

One  is  tempted  to  think  that  it  was  poorly  worth  while  to  be  at 
all  this  trouble,  when  the  source  of  English  episcopacy  is  explored. 
The  whole  hierarchy  of  that  Church  depends  on  Archbishop  Par- 
ker. Now  it  is  a  very  serious  question,  whether  he  received  ca- 
nonical  consecration  or  not.  The  reason  of  this  doubt  may  be  very 
briefly  stated.  The  persons  who  consecrated  Parker  were  not 
bishops  at  the  time  of  performing  the  service.  The  persons  who 
performed  this  office  were  Barlow  and  Scury,  bishops  elect  of  Chi- 
chester and  Hereford,  Coverdale  a  deprived  bishop  of  Exeter,  and 
Hodgkins  sufiragan  of  Bedford.  On  this  subject  it  has  been  re- 
marked, that  "  Elizabeth  deprived  the  bishops  whom  she  found  in 
the  Church,  and  their  episcopal  character  ceased.  In  like  manner 
had  the  episcopal  character  departed  from  the  bishops  whom  Mary 
deposed.  For  if  it  was  right  in  Elizabeth  to  put  down  bishops,  and 
take  from  them  their  episcopal  character  and  rights,  it  could  not  be 
wrong  in  Mary  to  do  precisely  the  same  thing.  Was  not  Mary  as 
much  the  sovereign  of  England  as  Elizabeth?  If  the  latter  could 
deprive  bishops,  so  could  the  former;  and  if  Mary  could  deprive, 
what  becomes  of  Parker's  consecration,  the  root  of  all  episcopacy 
in  England?" 

Parker  being  in  this  way  raised  to  the  See  of  Canterbury,  pro- 
ceeded to  consecrate  fourteen  bishops  in  place  of  those  who  had 
been  deprived  by  queen  Elizabeth  as  supreme  head  of  the  Church. 
Here,  then,  we  see  that  almost  all  the  bishops  of  England,  though 
canonically  consecrated,  were  displaced  by  the  civil  power,  and 
others  put  in  their  stead,  by  a  single  bishop  whose  consecration  is 
seriously  questioned.  If  there  is  no  spiritual  power  in  a  layman, 
or  a  laywoman,  then  Parker  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  could 
deprive  almost  the  entire  episcopacy  of  England,  and  bring  in  new 


Hetiew  of  Bishop  Ravenscroffs  Vindication  and  Defence,  125 

bishops  in  compliance  with  the  views  of  the  queen.  Is  this  canon- 
ical ?  Suppose  (hat  the  legislature  of  North  Carolina  should  make 
the  governor  of  that  state  head  of  the  Church;  and  the  governor, 
in  exercise  of  authority  thus  conferred,  should  displace  bishop  R. 
and  appoint  some  other  person  bishop  of  tlie  diocese.  In  case  the 
bishop  of  Virginia  could  be  induced  to  consecrate  that  other  per-' 
son,  would  he  be  rightful  bishop  of  North  Carolina;  and  would 
this  consecration  be  held  to  be  canonical?  We  doubt  it  much. — 
When  one  enters  minutely  into  the  history  of  England,  and  takes 
into  view  all  the  changes,  from  the  extermination  of  the  Church  by 
the  invasion  of  the  Saxons,  to  the  reign  of  his  present  Majesty 
George  the  IV.  (defender  of  the  faith !)  he  must  acknowledge  that 
what  bishop  R.  calls  apostolical  succession  has  been  sadly  boxed 
about,  and  subjected  to  many  foreign  influences.  To  trace  this 
succession  and  find  evidence  that  it  is  true  in  every  case  is,  the 
bishop  may  rely  on  it,  a  very  perplexing  and  difficult  job.  He  had 
belter  go  to  the  Bible,  and  direct  others  there,  than  rest  his  hopes 
of  salvation  on  so  sandy  a  foundation. 

That  difhculties  were  felt  in  relation  to  Archbishop  Parker  is  evi- 
dent from  this  fact;  that  seven  or  eight  years  after  his  consecration, 
this  whole  matter  was  brought  before  Parliament,  and  an  act  was 
passed  confirming  its  validity,  and  that  of  the  consecrations  per- 
formed by  him.  There  must  have  been  important  reasons  for  this, 
or  such  a  body  as  the  British  Parliament  would  hardly  have  adopted 
this  measure.     This  was  done  about  1566  or  1567. 

On  looking  into  this  subject,  it  has  occurred  to  us  that  the  Church 
of  England  ought  not  to  be  called  an  Episcopal  Church;  nor  the  bi- 
shops successors  of  the  Apostles.  The  succession  must  be  in  the 
King  and  Parliament,  where  really  all  the  authority  is  vested.  But 
the  King  and  Parliament  are  representatives  of  the  nation.  It  is 
then  something  like  a  great  Congregational  Church,  with  the  power 
originally  vested  in  the  people,  but  exercised  by  the  King  and  Par- 
liament, who  prescribe  who  shall  be  bishops,  and  what  the  bishops 
shall  do,  and  how  they  shall  pray.  We  do  hope^that  our'good 
friend  of  North  Carolina  has  a  better  warrant  for  heaven,  than  he 
can  receive  through  such  a  source  as  this.  He  had  better  do  at 
once  what  we  exhort  him  to  do;  that  is  to  rely  solely  on  the  promi- 
ses of  God  for  salvation;  and  instead  of  claiming  to  be  bishop  by 
divine  right,  acknowledge  that  he  is  superior  to  his  Presbyters  by 
the  custom  of  the  Church. 

But  in  opposition  to  this,  we  have  the  "invincible  arguments'' 
of  Mr  Law  against  bishop  Hoadley,  from  page  53  to  60  of  this  huge 
pamphlet.  The  insinuation  that  our  Reviewer  borrowed  from 
Hoadley  is  without  foundation.  When  he  gets  aid  he  acknowledges 
it.  Our  Reviewer  knows  something  of  the  general  history  of  the 
Bangorian  controversy,  but  has  never  read  the  works  on  either 
side.  Does  bisliop  R.  know  any  thing  of  them,  except  what  he  has 
learaed  from  the  "Churchman  Armed?" 

We  readily  acknowledge  the  acuteness  and  subtlety  of  Mr.  Law's 
reasoning;  but  it  creates  no  difficulty  with  us;  because  he  assumes 
many  things,  which  he  ought  to  have  proved.  We  can  easily  see 
how  a  prelatist  might  think  these  arguments  conclusive.  He  take? 
for  granted  the  very  same  premises,  which  Mr.  Law  assumes. 


126  Reviexv  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vuidicatioii  and  Defence, 

Tlie  argument  here  borrowed  is  intended  to  establish  two  things. 

1.  The  absolute  necessity  of  a  regular  succession  of  ministers 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  capable  of 
proo/,  in  each  particular  case. 

2.  The  existence  of  a  particular  order,  as  alone  possessing  the 
ordaining  power,  and  the  necessity  of  a  regular  succession  in  that 
order. 

The  force  of  the  whole  argument  consists  in  this  proposition, 
that  authority  from  Christ  to  preach  and  administer  ordinances,  can 
be  derived  in  no  way  but  that  of  an  unbroken  succession,  in  the 
line  of  bishops.     This  we  totally  deny.     For, 

1.  We  have  before  shown  that  bishops  as  such,  that  is  as  distinct 
from  presbyters,  were  not  known  in  the  primitive  church;  and  that, 
according  to  Jerome's  doctrine,  the  distinction  is  founded  on  the 
custoin  of  the  church,  and  not  on  the  law  of  Christ  *  There  is 
therefore  no  necessity  of  a  succession  in  the  line  of  business. 

2.  There  is  not  in  the  New  Testament  a  hint  which  warrants 
the  belief  that  there  is  any  transfer  from  Minister  to  Minister,  of 
the  authority  of  Christ.  Our  Lord  sent  out  the  tirst  Presbyters 
with  peculiar,  that  is  apostolical  powers,  and  inspired  them  with 
his  Spirit  that  they  might  organize  his  Church,  and  commit  his  doc- 
trine to  writings;  but  that  they  transferred  any  Apostolical  powers 
to  their  successors,  has  never  yet  been  proved.  We  are  bold  to 
say,  it  cannot  be  proved.  The  argument  of  Mr  Law  assumes  that 
unbroken  succession  is  necessary  for  the  communication  of  spirit- 
ual authority,  and  concludes  that  therefore  this  succession  has, 
amidst  all  changes  for  1800  years,  actually  taken  place.  We  think 
it  a  suthcient  reply  to  say,  the  succession  cannot  be  proved,  and 
theretbre  it  is  not  necessary  to  verify  the  Church,  or  give  validity 
to  the  sacraments. 

The  authority  to  bind  the  conscience,  and  to  give  assurance  of  Sal- 
vation, is  not  in  the  rninistry  of  the  gospel,  but  in  the  word  of  God, 
And  here  we  feel  authorized  to  adopt  the  style  of  Mr  Law,  and  say, 
'My  Lord,  i  should  think  it  might  be  granted  to  me,"  that  we  arc 
under  obligation  to  believe  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  solely  because 
he  teaches  the  tvnth  which  God  has  revealed ;  and  that  the  sacra- 
ments are  signs  and  seals  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  because  Christ 
hath  instituted  them.  "My  Lord,  it  is  a  plain  and  obvious  truth  that 
no  man  or  number  of  men"  can  confer  authority  on  a  person  to 
bind  the  conscience  by  any  thing  save  the  truth  as  God  has  made  it 
known.  "Then  I  desire  to  know  how  in  this  present  age  ;  or  any 
other,"  since  the  Clergy  began  to  set  up  undue  pretensions,  the 

*  It  is  a  curious  fact,  that  Hooker,  the  great  champion  of  Episcopacy,  was 
unable  to  get  over  this  testimony  of  Jerome.  After  exerting  his  whole 
strength  on  this  subject,  he  says  (vol.  iii.  101.)  "This  answer  to  St  Jerome 
seemeth  dangerous;  1  have  qualified  it  as  1  may  by  addition  of  some  words 
of  restraint :  yet  I  satisfy  not  myself;  in  my  judgment  it  would  be  altered." 
Dr  McCrie,  in  his  Life  of  Melville,  suspects  that  this  was  a  marginal  remark 
made  by  the  author,  on  reviewing  his  argument.  His  answer  to  the  Presby- 
terians on  this  point  did  not  satisfy  himself.  It  seemed  dangerous — and  he 
purposed  to  reconstruct  this  part  of  the  work.  But  this  memorandum, 
jotted  down  in  the  margin,  was  by  the  publisher  of  Hooker's  manuscriptj 
r'norantly  introduced  into  the  text," 


Meiciew  of  Bishop  Mavenscrojt^s  Vindkalion  and  Befence.  12/ 

imposition  of  the  hands  of  a  bishop  can  add  any  thing  to  the  authori- 
ty of  Christ's  word,  or  to  the  efficacy  of  his  sacraments.  "  I 
should  think,  my  Lord,"  that  that  which  is  God's  truth  when 
preached  by  an  Episcopalian,  is  also  God's  truth  when  preached  by 
a  dissenter.  And  I  do  humbly  presume  to  think,  my  Lord,  that 
there  is  not  such  a  magic  influence  in  dissenterism,  as  to  change 
the  saving  verities  of  God's  word  into  uncertain  tradition  or  soul  de- 
stroying error. 

The  aullwrity  to  invest  men  -with  the  office  of  teachers  is  in  the 
Church.  And  we  are  happy  to  agree  ivith  the  great  and  good 
Cranmer,  so  far  as  to  believe  that  in  extraordinary  cases,  the  elec™ 
tion  of  a  company  of  faithful  men  is  sufficient  to  constitute  a  pres- 
byter or  bishop.  And  we  have  no  doubt  that  a  man  thus  appoint- 
ed, and  preaching  the  truth  of  God's  word,  is  a  true  minister  of 
Christ,  possessing  all  the  authority  which  a  minister  of  the  gospel 
can  possess. 

But  where  no  case  of  necessity  exists,  to  justify  a  departure  from 
the  ordinary  course,  we  are  perfectly  clear  that  i1  is  the  rule  of 
Christ's  house  for  men  to  be  invested  with  the  office  of  religious 
teacher,  by  religious  teachers,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  people. 
Not  because  the  religious  teacher  confers  any  authority  residing 
solely  in  himself,  or  in  his  order;  but  because,  as  we  have  before 
shown,  this  is  the  surest  way  to  obtain  competent  religious  instruc- 
tors. We  are,  then,  strong  advocates  for  reguhir  ordination.  We 
cannot  admit  irregular  ordinations,  in  any  cases  but  those  of  clear 
necessity.  Our  reasons,  however,  are  entirely  difTerent  from  those 
of  bishop  R.  and  Mr.  Law.  Let  all  take  the  Bible  and  judge  be- 
tween us. 

In  these  quotations  from  Mr  Law's  Letters,  there  is  a  good  deal 
said,  respecting  the  Priesthood.  And  much  of  the  force  of  his  ar- 
gument depends  on  the  assumption  that  there  is  a  Priesthood  in  the 
Church;  that  is,  a  body  of  men  appointed  by  God  to  bear  messages 
from  him  directly  to  the  people;  and  to  offer  the  requests  of  the 
people  to  God.  It  is  also  taken  for  granted,  that  this  is  the  only 
ivay  in  which  men  can  transact  business  with  heaven,  fco  as  to  be 
assured  of  salvation.  If  all  this  were  true,  we  should  a;iree  at  once 
with  these  high  churchmen,  and  miike  our  peace  as  soon  as  possible. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  again  to  show  that  there  is  no  Priest- 
hood in  the  Church;  no  such  power,  as  is  supposed,  given  to  man; 
and  of  course  no  force  at  all  in  the  arguments  founded  on  this  as- 
sumption. 

The  remarks  of  the  same  writer  farther  on,  respecting  the  suc- 
cession of  bishops  as  distinct  from  Presbyters,  have  been  sufficiently 
answered  in  another  part  of  this  Review,  and  we  shall  not  go  over 
the  same  ground  again. 

Our  Reviewer  had  said  that  the  founders  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land did  not  hold  the  sentiments  respecting  the  exclusive  rights  of 
Episcopacy,  which  are  held  by  modern  high  churchmen.  On  this 
subject  bishop  R.  uses  the  following  strong  language. 

"  Presuming,  that  by  the  word  founders,  you  mean  the  reformers  of  the 
Church.of  England— (its  foundation  being  in  the  first  century  and  apostoli- 
cal,) you  must  be  able  then  to  show  that  the  men  who  gave  their  bodies  to 


128  Heview  of  Bishop  EavenseroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

tlie  flames  in  behalf  of  the  truth,  were  double  minded  men.  That  the  men 
who  declared  in  the  preface  to  the  ordinal  "  that  it  is  evident  unto  all  men, 
diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  Authors,  that  from  the  Apos- 
tles' times  there  have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  church,  Bish- 
ops, Priests  and  Deacons"—"  And  therefore  to  the  intent  that  these  orders 
may  be  continued  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  the  cliurch,  no  man 
shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Piiest  or  Deacon  in  this 
churcli,  or  be  suffered  to  execute  any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be 
called,  tried,  examined  and  admitted  thereunto,  according  to  the  form  here- 
after following,  or  hath  had  Episcopal  consecration  or  ordiii.tion,"  did 
nevertheless  consider  unintenupted  succession  from  Christ's  Apostles,  in 
the  line  of  Bishops— as  incapable  of  proof  and  unimportant  to  the  validity  of 
the  ministerial  commissions;  and  did  confess  and  allow, that  persons  other- 
wise than  Episcopally  ordained,  had  equally  with  themselves  a  divine  right 
to  administer  the  affairs  of  Christ's  kingdom  in  the  world.  For  this  you 
must  do  to  redeem  your  pledge  and  escape  the  censure  justly  due  to  so  un- 
founded an  assertion." — pp.  55,  56. 

By  founders  of  the  Church  of  Englantl,  we  meant  not  the  King 
and  Parliament,  but  those  excellent  men,  few  in  number,  but  of 
great  worth,  who,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  Vlll,  Edward  VI,  Mary, 
and  in  part  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  promoted  the  reformation  in 
England.  As  for  the  assertion  that  the  Church  of  England  was 
founded  in  the  first  century,  and  is  Apostolical,  we  shall  believe 
it,  when  it  is  proved  that  queen  Elizabeth  was  successor  to  the 
Apostles. 

It  is  not  on  personal  considerations  that  we  advert  to  this  subject. 
We  wish  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  present  day,  to  imbibe  the 
spirit  of  its  reformers,  of  Granmer,  and  Redley,  Hooper  and  Jewel, 
and  Grindal,  and  other  men  of  that  stamp,  who  stood  forth  to  stem 
the  torrent  of  corruption,  and  who  were  willing  to  labor  witii  their 
brethren  of  other  names,  in  the  promotion  of  Christ's  kingdom — men, 
who  carried  the  Reformation  as  far  as  they  could,  and  who  sat  down 
and  wept,  when  tlie  civil  authorities  check'^d  them  in  their  high  ca- 
reer. It  would  require  a  volume  to  slate  all  the  evidence  which 
might  be  adduced  on  this  subject.  The  following  summary  is  all 
that  we  can  find  room  for.  But  first  we  beg  leave  to  remark,  that 
the  "Preface  to  the  Ordinal,"  on  which  bishop  R.  relies  with  so 
much  confidence,  does  not  prove  what  he  supposes.  Because, 
while  Episcopalians  hold  that  three  orders,  bishops,  priests,  and 
deacons,  have  obtained  in  the  Church  since  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles, many  of  them  have  held  that  this  was  not  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, but  a  matter  of  expediency,  and  therefore  not  essential  to  the 
being  of  the  Church.  This  part  of  the  Preface  proves  that  for  a 
man  to  be  acknowledged  a  Minister  in  the  Church  of  England,  he 
must  be  ordained  as  the  ordinal  prescribes.  But  one,  we  humbly 
think,  may  be  a  Minister  in  the  Chxirch  of  Christ,  and  not  belong 
to  the  Church  of  England.  So  also  thougiit  many  of  the  best  men, 
who  have  ever  graced  the  Church  of  England,  And  that  there 
have  been  many,  who  would  have  been  regarded  as  ornaments  of 
any  particular  Church,  we  rejoice  to  acknowledge.  Our  prayer  to 
God  is,  that  there  may  be  many  more  of  the  same  character. 

And  we  would  here  ask,  whether  the  Church  of  Scotland  is  not 
acknowledged  by  the  English  Parliament,  by  king,  lords,  (bishops 
of  course)  and  commons,  as  a  branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ;  and 
has  not  this  been  the  case  at  any  time  for  120  years?    But  m  the 


Seview  of  Bishop  Ravenserajf  s  frndicaiion  and  Defence.    l'2i:> 

beginning  of  the  Reformation,  and  until  near  the  close  of  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth,  there  was  no  doubt  about  the  ordination  of  the  foreign 
Reformed  Churches. 

Indeed  it  is  amazing  to  us,  that  any  can  read  the  history  of  the 
Reformation,  without  every  where  seeing  convincing  evidence  of 
the  truth  of  every  thing  advanced  by  our  Reviewer  on  this  subject. 
The  evidence  is  of  this  sort. 

1.  A  familiar,  intimate  and  affectionate  correspondence  was  car- 
vied  on,  between  the  English  and  Foreign  Reformers,  in  which  there 
is  a  free  and  cordial  acUnowledgment  on  both  sides,  of  brotherhood 
in  the  Ministry,  and  of  the  Churches  respectively,  as  Churches  of 
Christ.  BxirneCs  History  of  the  Reformation,  his  Travels,  Strype's 
Memorials,  and  Calvin''s  Letters,  afford  decisive  evidence  of  this 
fact. 

2.  There  occur  repeated  instances  of  the  authoritative  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  ordination  of  loreign  ministers,  settling  in  England  ; 
on  some  of  whom  preferments  were  conferred  in  the  English 
Church,  without  re-ordination. 

John  Knox  who  was  for  some  time  one  of  King  Edward's  chaplains, 
was  employed  as  a  prearher  in  Enghmd.  and  had  the  offer  of  a 
bishopric  made  to  him  by  the  privy  Council  of  England,  of  which 
Crannier  was  a  member.  Strype  and  Burnet  are  referred  to  by  the 
biographer  of  Knox  for  evidence.  As  is  also  Brand  in  his  history 
of  Newcastle,  "  In  the  year  1582,  Archbishop  Grindal,  by  a  for- 
mal deed,  declared  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  Mr  John  Morrison, 
who  had  been  ordained  by  the  Synod  of  Lothian,  according  to  the 
laudable  form  and  rite  of  the  reformed  Church  of  Scotland."  This 
deed  is  preserved  by  Strype  in  his  Life  of  Grindal,  and  is  quoted 
by  McCrie  in  the  Life  of  Knox,  and  by  J^eal  in  his  History  of  the 
Puritans,      i 

Whitfingham,  Dean  of  Durham,  was  ordained  in  the  English 
Church  at  Geneva,  of  which  Knox  was  Pastor. 

The  case  of  John  A'Lasco,  a  Polish  nobleman,  who  embraced  the 
Reformed  religion,  became  a  Minister  of  the  Gospel,  and  settled 
in  London  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI,  affords  a  very  striking  proof. 
A  patent  was  granted  to  him  by  the  King,  which  may  he  tound  in 
Burnet,  but  is  too  long  to  be  inserted  here.  In  this  instrument  it  is 
acknowledged,  that  the  Church  under  A'Lhsco's  care,  though  dis- 
conformed  to  the  practice  of  the  Ctturch  of  England,  was  "institu- 
ted in  truly  Christian  and  Apostolical  doctrines  and  riles.  But  this 
i.s  not  all.  This  Church,  set  up  in  London  after  the  pattern  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  on  the  Continent,  was  acknov\  ledged  and  pro- 
tected by  the  King  and  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that  by  this 
means  the  English  Churches  also  might  be  excited  to  embrace  Jlpos- 
tolical  purity."     This  leads  to  the  remark, 

3.  That  the  leading  English  ileformers,  in  their  private  senti- 
ments, agreed  with  the  Reformers  of  Switzerland  and  Geneva. 

"Hooper,  in  a  letter  dated  Feb.  8,  1550.  informs  Bullinger,  that 
'the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  bishops  of  Rochester,  Ely,  St 
David's,  Lincoln,  and  Bath,  were  sincerely  bent  on  advancing  the 
the  purity  of  doctrine,  agreeing  in  all  things  with  the  Helvetic 
Churches:  '>     Burnet.  Hist.  Ref.     "Parkhurst,  bishop  of  Norwich. 


ISO  Review  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  defence. 

in  a  letter  to  Gualter,  Feb.  4,  1573,  fervently  exclaims,  'O,  would 
to  God,  would  to  God,  once  at  last,  all  the  English  people  would  in 
good  earnest  propound  to  themselves  to  follow  the  Church  of  Zu- 
rich, as  the  most  absolute  pattern.'  "     Strype. 

Cranmer  expressed  his  opinion  formally  in  writing,  that  "the 
bishops  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  no  two  things,  but 
both  07te  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion" — "The  bishop 
of  St  David's,  my  lord  elect  of  Westminster,  Dr  Cox,  Dr  Redman, 
say  that  at  the  beginning  they  were  all  one^  Burnet.  "Thir- 
teen bishops,  with  a  (freat  numbi^r  of  other  ecclesiastics,  subscribed 
this  propositi'-n,  'that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  deacons  or 
ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops.'  "  Burnet,  as  above.  "Lati- 
mer and  Hooper  maintained  the  identity  of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
by  divine  institution.  This  was  also  the  opinion  of  Pilkington, 
bishop  ot  Durham.  Bishop  Jewel  assents  to  it  in  his  answer  to 
Harding." 

We  have  room  for  no  more  testimonies.  Nothing  but  ignorance, 
or  inveterate  prejudice,  can  induce  any  man  to  deny  that  the  Re- 
forniers  of  the  (Jliurch  in  England  acknowledged  the  validity  of 
the  Fresbyterial  ordination.  And  had  it  not  been  for  Elizabeth's 
love  of  pomp  and  show,  and  her  jealousy  for  the  royal  prerogative, 
the  Church  of  England  would  have  borne  a  very  different  aspect 
from  that  which  now  it  bears.* 

Bishop  Ravenscroft  seems  to  think  that  these  are  matters  con- 
cerning the  faith  or  order  of  the  Church,  or  concerning  both,  which 
are  to  be  believed,  though  not  found  in  the  Bible.  But  on  this 
point  we  think  it  unnecessary  to  employ  our  time.  These  things, 
he  says,  are  proved  by  the  very  same  evidence,  which  establishes 
the  genuineness  of  the  Scriptures.  We  may  have  to  remark  on 
this  subject  here.ifter.  We  now  only  ask,  what  is  this,  but  in  ef- 
fect to  put  tradition  on  the  same  level  with  the  word  of  God? 

While  the  bishop  is  on  this  point,  he,  however,  continues  to  drag 
in  another  which  has  no  sort  of  connexion  with  it; — for  what  rea- 
son, let  otheis  judge.     Thus  he  expresses  himself, 

*  It  might  have  been  mentioned  tliat  the  book  caUed  the  Erudition  of  a 
Christian  J1a7i,  otlicrwise  called  the  King's  Book,  and  the  Bishop's  Book, 
published  in  1543,  distinctly  states,  that  in  the  New  Testament,  there  are 
only  two  orders  ot  Christian  Ministers,  priests  and  deacons.  We  beg  leave 
to  add  on  •  other  testimony,  of  later  days.  The  gre  vt  and  good  Archbishop 
Usher  says,  "1  think  that  churches  that  liave  nn  bisttops  are  defective  in 
their  government,  yet,  for  the  justifying  my  communion  with  them,  (which 
I  do  love  and  honor  as  true  members  of  the  Universal  Church)  1  do  profess 
if  I  were  in  Holland,  I  should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands  of 
the  Dutch,  with  the  like  affection  as  I  stiould  from  the  hands  of  the  French 
Ministers  at  Chare. ilon.  And  m  his  answer  to  Baxter,  he  says,  "that  the 
King  havinsr  asked  him  at  the  Isle  of  Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity, 
that  rrenbyters  alone  ordained  any?  he  replied  yes;  and  that  he  could 
show  his  Majesty  more,  even  wheue  ruESDYXEiis  alone  scccessivelt  oh- 
PAiNED  bishops;  and  instanced  in  Jerome's  words,  of  the  I'resbyters  of  Al- 
exandria choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops  from  the  days  of  Mark,  till 
Heraclas  and  Uionysius."  Had  bishop  R.  known  all  that  learned  Episcopa- 
lians have  written,  would  he  have  pledged  himself  to  surrender  his  cause, 
if  we  could  point  out  a  single  instance  of  acknowledged  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation in  1500  years  ?— We  cannot  help  remarking  that  if  all  bishops  were 
like  Usher,  there  would  be  no  controversy  between  them  and  Presbyte- 
rians. 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vimlicalion  and  Defence.  131 

"  Hence  (as  you  well  know)  the  hasty  conclusion  of  most  of  your  read- 
era,  if  it  is  not  in  the  Bible,  it  need  not  be  believed,  and  thus  the  whole  sub- 
ject is  dismissed  from  the  attention,  and  the  mind  pre-occupied  against  just 
information.  Yet  I  would  humbly  suggest,  that  tlie  wonder-working  system 
of  Hermeneutics,  which  can  draw  from  the  Bible,  the  doctrines  of  particu- 
lar redemption,  of  predestination  to  eternal  life  of  a  part,  and  to  eternal 
death  to  the  rest  of  mankind,  by  the  most  merciful  God,  without  respect  or 
foresight  of  any  good  or  evil  by  them  done;  might  find  in  that  same  Bible, 
at  least  equal  support  for  an  uninterrupted  succession  from  Christ,  tlirough 
his  Apostles — to  give  validity  and  eflect  too,  to  sacraments,  as  seals  of  the 
grace  of  the  gospel." — p.  56. 

On  this  difficult  subject,  we  have  no  intention  of  entering  here. 
The  pages  of  our  work  have  already  contained  a  vindication  of  the 
doctrine  as  held  by  Presbyterians.  And  we  vvould  hnmbly  recom- 
mend to  bishop  R.  a  careful  perusal  of  the  "Letters  on  the  Divine 
Purpose,"  with  which  a  valued  correspondent  not  long  ago  favored 
the  readers  of  the  Magazine.  Our  publisher  has  printed  them  in  a 
separate  form,  and  they  vaAy  easily  be  procured. 

But  we  cannot  help  remarking  that  language  of  this  sort  comes  with 
a  very  bad  grace  from  an  Episcopalian.  It  brings  to  mind  the  saying 
of  the  great  Chatham,  of  which,  perhaps,  bishop  R.  never  heard: 
*'The  Church  of  England,"  said  he,  "has  a  Popish  Liturgy,  Calvinis- 
tic  Articles,  and  an  Arminian  Clergy."  That  the  second  part  of  this 
pithy  sentence  is  true,  has  been  often  proved.  An  English  Clergy- 
man has  filled  a  large  octavo  volume  with  proofs  of  the  doctrinal 
Calvinism  of  his  Church.  But  these  articles  speak  for  themselves. 
On  the  distinguishing  points  of  this  great  controversy,  they  are  so 
clear  and  decisive,  that  we  have  never  known  a  Presbyterian  who 
would  hesitate  subscribing  to  them.  Indeed  the  very  doctrine  of 
the  seventeenth  article  is  found  in  the  writings  of  Calvin.  And  the 
"latter  part  of  the  final  clause  of  this  article,  so  frequently  appealed 
to  as  deciding  the  Anticalvinistic  sense  of  that  article,  is  a  literal 
translation  from  Calvin's  Institutes."  Vide  Inst.  i.  17.  5.  See 
Christian  Observer,  for  April  182G.  pa.  225.  We  shall  give  the 
words  of  Calvin  and  of  the  article  referred  to. 

And  in  our  doings,  that  will  of  God  is  I  Proinde  in  rebus  agendis  ea  est  nobis 
to  be  followed,  which  we  have  ex-  |  perspicienda  Dei  voluntas,  quam  ver- 
pressly  declared  unto  us  in  the  word  I  bo  suo  declarat. 
of  God.  Article  xvii.      j  Calvin,  i.  17.  5. 

Calvin's  book,  it  ought  to  be  known,  was  published  some  time 
before  the  xxxix  articles  were  drwan  up.  The  first  edition  of 
this  great  work  was  printed  in  1535,  the  last  under  Calvin's  super- 
intendence in  1561.  It  deserves  especial  notice,  that  in  the  Bull  of 
pope  Pius  the  5th,  by  which  Q,ueen  Elizabeth  was  deposed  and  ex- 
communicated, one  of  the  charges  alleged  against  her  was,  "that 
the  impious  mysteries  and  Institutes  according  to  Cnlvin  are  received 
and  observed  by  herself,  and  even  enjoined  on  all  her  subjects  to 
be  obeyed."  Impia  mysteria  et  Instituta  ad  Calvinum  praescrip- 
tum  a  se  suscepta  et  observata,  etiam  a  substitis  servari  mandavit." 
(See  the  whole  paper  in  Burnett.)  Indeed  they  who  are  versed  in 
the  English  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  age,  and  are  familiar  with 
the  standard  writers  of  that  time,  know  that  the  Institutes  of  Calvin 
•formed  the  text  book  of  students  in  Divinity:  that  the  bishops  re- 
17 


132  Meview  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  JJefence. 

quired  young  men,  ut  pane  ad  verbum  cdiscant,  to  learn  them  al- 
most to  a  word;  that,  beins;  accurately  translated  into  English,  they 
should  be  kept  in  all  the  Churches  for  public  use;  that  the  preach- 
ers habitually  referred  to  them  in  their  popular  strmons,  and,  in  a 
word,  as  Hooker  says,  that  they  who  were  best  acquainted  with 
the  writings  of  Calvin,  were  esteemed  the  most  learned  divines. 
Since  writing  the  above,  we  have  fallen  in  with, 

The  following  passage  in  the  Christian  Observer,  vol.  ii.  142, 
143.  It  gives  a  summary  of  the  facts  above  stated.  "Few  names 
stand  higher,  or  in  a  more  deserved  pre-eminence,  amongst  the  wise 
and  pious  members  of  the  English  Church,  tlian  that  of  bishop  An- 
drews. His  testimony  to  the  memory  of  Calvin  is,  that  'he  was 
an  illustrious  person,  and  never  to  be  mentioned  without  a  preface 
of  the  highest  honor.'  Whoever  examines  the  sermons,  writings, 
&c.  of  our  divines,  in  the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  1.,  will  con- 
tinually meet  ivith  epithets  of  honor  with  which  his  name  is  men- 
tioned; the  learned,  the  zvise,  the  judicious,  the  pious  Calvin,  are 
expressions  every  where  to  be  found  in  the  remains  of  those  times. 
It  is  well  known  that  his  Institutes  were  read  and  studied  in  the 
Universities,  by  every  student  in  Divinity,  for  a  considerable  por- 
tion'^of  a  century;  nay,  that,  by  a  convocation  held  at  Oxford,  that 
book  was  recommended  to  the  general  study  of  the  nation.  So  far 
Vfas  the  Church  of  England,  and  her  chief  flivines,  from  countenan- 
cing that  unbecoming  and  absurd  treatment,  with  which  the  name 
of  this  eminent  Protestant  is  now  so  frequently  dishonored,  that  it 
would  be  no  difficult  matter  to  prove,  that  there  is  not  a  parallel  in- 
stance upon  record,  of  any  single  individual  being  equally  and  so  un- 
equivocally venerated,  for  the  union  of  wisdom  and  piety,  both  in 
England,  and  by  a  large  body  of  the  foreign  Churches,  as  John 
Calvin.  Nothing  but  ignorance  of  the  ecclesiastical  records  of  those 
times,  or  resolute  prejudice,  could  cast  a  cloak  of  concealment  over 
this  fact;  it  has  been  evidenced  by  the  combined  testimony  both  of 
enemies  and  friends  to  his  system  of  doctrines."  This  is  Episcopal 
testimony,  and  therefore  we  have  given  it  at  length.  The  change 
which  took  place  was  produced  more  by  the  republican  sentiments 
of  the  Genevan  school,  than  by  any  conviction  that  the  doctrine  of 
Calvin  was  false. 

In  closing  this  part  of  our  Review,  we  are  borne  on  by  our  feel- 
ings to  make  a  few  additional  remarks.  We  are  Presbyterians  on 
conviction.  We  are  persuaded  that  the  order  of  that  church  is 
truly  Apostolical ;  that  its  doctrines  are  scriptural ;  that  its  disci- 
pline is  wholesome;  that  its  polity  is  favorable  to  political  and  reli« 
gious  liberty;  and  that  its  influence  on  the  whole  frame  of  society 
is  beneticial.  But  we  are  as  sure  as  we  can  be  of  any  such  thing, 
that  true  religion  is  not  connected  with  any  particular  form  of  ec- 
clesiastical polity;  that  the  church  does  not  depend  on  any  particu- 
lar order  of  the  Ministry;  and  that  preachers  of  the  gospel  derive 
no  authority  directly  from  Christ,  which  gives  validity  to  their  min- 
istrations. We  are  convinced  that  the  contrary  opinions  are  hurt- 
ful; that  they  are  adverse  to  true  piety;  destroy  genuine  Christian 
benevolence;  and  injure  the  general  interests  of  religion.  These 
are  our  motives  for  the  course  we  have  pursued.    We  have 


Reviexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defmct  13; 

never  had,  if  we  know  our  own  hearts,  the  least  degree  of  mv 
fraternal  feeling  towards  a  human  being  for  being  an  Episcopalian. 
But  we  cannot  bear  intolerance.  Arrogance,  and  exclusive  pre- 
tensions are  objects  of  our  "implacable  disgust." — And  we  do 
mean,  while  life  lasts,  to  bear  our  humble  part  in  putting  them 
down.  The  interests  of  "  pure  and  undefiled  religion"  in  our 
country  demand  this  service  of  us,  and  of  all  who  love  the  cause  of 
truth  and  righteousness.  We  wish  our  episcopal  brethren  to  be  as 
fully  convinced  of  this  as  we  are.  Let  them  labor  to  promote  re- 
ligion, and  they  have  our  love  and  our  prayers.  But  as  flir  as  they 
manifest  a  sectarian  spirit,  endeavor  to  make  proselytes  to  narrow 
and  bigoted  opinions,  and  set  themselves  up  as  exclusively  mem- 
bers of  the  true  church,  and  their  ministers  as  vicars  of  Christ,  so 
far  Vie  must  oppose  them — not  in  anger,  but  for  the  sake  of  truth 
and  charity. 

THE    BIBLE    SOCIETV. 

The  Bible  Society  question  next  claims  our  attention,  in  the  or- 
der of  subjects  treated  by  bishop  Ravenscroft.  And  we  are  truly 
sorry  to  observe  that  he  waxes  warmer  and  warmer  as  he  advances. 
We  shall,  however,  pursue  our  course,  noticing  just  such  things  as 
the  cause  of  truth  requires  that  we  should  animadvert  on,  and  pass- 
ing by  the  rest  in  silence. 

In  this  discussion,  it  is  very  important  that  the  true  character  of 
the  Bible  Society  should  be  understood;  and  the  real  state  of  the 
question  between  the  contending  parlies  fairly  exhibited, 

1,  As  to  the  real  character  of  tiie  Bible  Society, — This  seems  to 
have  been  sadly  misunderstood  by  many  of  its  opponents.  We  beg 
our  readers,  then,  distinctly  to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  Bible  Society 
is  not  a  Church,  it  assumes  no  ecclesiastical  authority;  it  imposes 
no  decisions  on  its  members;  it  assumes  no  one  attribute  of  a  Church 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a  Company, 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  and  distributing  money,  in  the 
way  of  charity.  And  as  this  association  assumes  no  ecclesiastical 
character,  so  it  interferes  in  none  of  its  transactions  with  the  opera- 
tions of  any  of  the  Churches  in  Christendom.  The  object  of  the 
Society,  is  indeed,  the  same  with  that  of  every  true  Church  of 
Christ,  namely,  the  promotion  of  the  Christian  religion.  But  the 
church  and  the  society  move  in  entirely  diflerent  spheres;  so  that 
there  can  be  no  collision,  unless  the  church  should  go  out  of  her 
proper  course,  to  oppose  the  Bible  Society.  Every  Protestant 
church  in  the  world  professes  to  derive  its  religion  from  the  Bible; 
and  in  promoting  what  is  believed  to  be  the  true  religion  of  Christ, 
every  church  acknowledges  its  obligation  to  distribute  the  Bible  as 
an  important  part  of  the  means  appointed  by  God  for  the  salvation 
of  sinners.  But  the  Bible  Society  undertakes  just  this — It  says  to 
Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  kc.  &c.  we  mean  to  do  our  endeavor, 
whithersoever  you  may  send  missionaries,  with  Prayer  Books,  Con- 
fessions of  Faith,  Catechisms,  kc.  to  place  there  a  sufficient  num- 
ber of  Bibles  :  so  that  whatever  means  you  might  have  expended 
in  this  part  of  your  work,  you  may  reserve  for  other  purposes. — 
We  Tvil!  give  the  Bible:  you  may  do  the  rest.    But  our  work  is 


134  Ucvkii)  of  BisJiop  Iiavenscrflft*s  Vmdicaiiou  and  Bejencc, 

one  of  assistance,  and  not  of  interference:  We  therefore  give  no- 
thing  but  the  Bible. 

There  are,  however,  other  reasons  for  this  last  determination.  The 
Bible  contains  an  expression  of  the  whole  will  ofGod  respecting  man's 
salvation.  All  necessary  truth  is  clearly  revealed.  The  members 
of  this  association  do  then  regard  it  as  a  work  of  benevolence  to 
distribute  the  Bible.  But  there  are  hundreds  of  millions  of  human 
beings,  who  have  no  Bible,  and  know  nothingof  its  life-giving  truths. 
Now,  allowing  one  Bible  for  six  souls,  and  making  due  allowances 
for  the  increase  of  {)opulation,  and  the  des-truction  of  books,  the  an- 
nua! ilistribution  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  Bibles,  would 
not  supply  the  world  with  the  word  of  God  in  fewer  than  a  thou- 
sand years.  And  within  that  period  the  entire  population  of  the 
world  will  have  changed  about  thirty  times,  or  nearly  twenty  thou- 
sand millions  of  souls  will  have  gone  to  eternity.  This  work  of 
charity,  then,  calls  for  the  union  of  all  hearts  and  the  co-operation 
of  all  hands.  But  the  christian  world  is  divided  into  a  number  of 
denominations,  who  differ  as  to  their  explanations  of  some  parts  of 
scripture;  and  of  course  they  would  choose  different  commentators 
for  the  exposition  of  scripture.  The  enterprise  of  supplying  the 
world  with  the  Bible  demands  greater  resources  than  any  christian 
denomination  can  command.  A  plan  suited  to  the  emergency  of  the 
case  must  be  devised.  A  company  is  formed  for  this  particular 
work  of  charity,  on  a  principle  to  which  it  was  supposed  that  no 
Protestant  could  possibly  object.  The  Bible  is  given — the  Bible 
alone,  "without  note  or  comment,"  just  as  God  gave  it  to  man. 
This,  then,  is  the  real  character  of  the  Bible  Society.  It  is  a  cha- 
ritable association  forgiving  away  the  Bible,  or  furnishing  it  at  a 
cheap  rate;  formed  precisely  on  the  principle  of  a  society  for  fur- 
nishing bread  to  the  poor  in  a  time  of  scarcity;  or  a  sotip  society,  or 
any  other  charitable  association. 

2.  £s  to  the  state  of  the  question  betm^een  the  friends  and  enemies 
of  this  society. — It  is  difficult  to  exhibit  this  fairly  and  fully  in  (ew 
words.  The  friends  of  the  society  maintain  that  their  intentions 
are  benevolent,  and  the  effects  of  their  labors  salutary.  Enemies 
deny  this  of  course.  Bui  this  enmity  takes  so  many  different  shapes, 
and  attempts  to  justify  itself  by  so  many  various  and  opposite  rea- 
sons, that  we  are  here  obliged  to  enter  a  little  into  detail.  Our  plan 
will  be  to  give  a  list  of  characters,  and  a  very  brief  statement  of 
their  respective  grounds  of  enmity. 

1.  Infidels  of  all  classes  among  Christians. — Our  readers  will 
readily  understand  that  the  true  reason  of  their  hostility  is  hatred  of 
(he  Bible.  Their  ostensible  reasons  are  the  same  with  those  of 
some  other  enemies. 

2.  Political  Enemies.  These  are  of  two  classes,  directly  op- 
posed to  each  other. 

A.  Monarchists  or  Friends  of  Arbitrary  Govermnent.  These 
oppose  the  Bible  Society,  because,  say  they,  the  Bible  puts 
wrong  notions  into  the  heads  of  people  respecting  liberty,  and 
the  natural  equality  of  man.  It  unfits  them  for  due  subordina- 
tion, and  brings  them  together  to  plot  and  cabal  against  the  go- 
vernment.    They  maintain  that  the  Bible  Society  is  a  branch 


lleview  of  Bishop  Ravcnscrojt^s  Vindication  and  Defence.  135 

of  the  famous  Illuminati-systcin,  which  once  made  such  noise  in 
the  world! 
B.  Radicals,  or  Enemies  of  all  government.  These  are  noisy, 
roaring  felloivs,  who  say,  and  swear,  that  (he  Bible  Society  is 
a  tool  of  the  Holy  Alliance;  intended  expressly  to  promote  su- 
perstition, and  train  men  for  slavery,  it  is  a  little  unfortunate 
for  these  men  that  the  head  of  the  Holy  Alliance  has  suppr  essed 
the  Bible  Society  in  his  dominions. 

3.  Mahometans.  These  poor  fellows  are  enemies  because  they 
liave  been  excited  by  Roman  Catholics  to  such  hostility  as  they  have 
expressed. 

4.  Papists.  The  enemies  of  this  class  assign  in  part  the  same 
reasons  with  those  who  follow  next  in  order. 

5.  High  Churchmen  among  Protestants.  The  opposition  to  the 
Bible  Society  began  with  this  class  in  England. 

A.  It  was  first  objected  that  the  Society  was  dangerous  to  the 
church, 

B.  That  it  was  injurious  to  the  Society  for  promoting  Christian 
knowledge. 

C.  That  it  would  destroy  the  English  power  in  Hindostan. 

D.  That  it  would  overthrow  the  establishment,  because  the  Bi- 
"ble  was  given  without  the  Prayer  Book. 

E.  That  it  (ended  to  the  overthrow  of  all  revealed  religion. 
This  last  is  one  of  the  objections  wliich  has  found  its  way  into 
this  country. 

6.  MiscELLANnous  Enemies.  We  adopt  this  odd  title,  because 
we  do  not  know  what  other  to  use.  These  enemies  consist  of  Uni- 
tarian Qua/cers;  Reformed  Baptists;  a  set  of  people  who  call  them.- 
selves  Goats,  and  other  nondescripts,  whom  we  know  not  how  to  de- 
signate. 

An  advocate  of  the  Bible  Society,  then,  is  surrounded  by  hosts  of 
enemies;  and  seems  to  need  the  eyes  of  an  Argus,  and  the  hands 
of  a  Briareiis  to  maintain  his  cause.  But  the  comfort  is,  that  most 
of  these  adversaries  are  directly  opposed  to  each  other;  and  may 
be  left  to  fight  it  out  among  themselves.  And  of  the  rest,  it  may 
safely  be  assumed,  that  they  take  the  same  positions,  adopt  the  sam<» 
manoeuvres,  and  use  the  same  weapons — so  that  if  one  set  of  their 
is  defeated,  the  whole  are  completely  put  to  the  rout. 

In  regard  to  bishop  Ravenscroft;  if  all  his  personalities,  his  as- 
sertions without  proof,  his  repetitions,  were  omitted,  this  part  of  his 
pamphlet  would  be  well  nigh  reduced  to  nothing.  It  would  be  easy 
to  take  all  his  general  principles,  and  despatch  them  in  a  few  pages. 
But  in  urging  and  repeating  these  principles,  he  brings  forward  so 
many  opinions,  which  we  think  both  erroneous  and  dangerous,  that 
we  feel  compelled  to  follow  him  step  by  step  through  his  unplea- 
sant course.  We  promise,  however,  to  condense  our  remarks  as 
much  as  circumstances  will  permit. 

Every  thing  at  all  relevant  to  this  subject,  as  it  is  handled  by 
bishop  R.  may,  if  we  have  not  mistaken  him,  be  comprised  in  the 
following  particulars. 

1.  That  according  to  the  Bible  Society  principle,  the  scriptures 
are  in  such  sort  sufficient,  that  notes  and  comroents  are  unneces- 


13S  Review  of  Bishop  Kavenseroft's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

sary;  that  there  is  no  danger  of  men  being  mistaken  or  misled  with- 
«ut  them,  &c.  &c. 

2.  That  this  principle,  contrary  to  the  express  will  of  God,  sepa- 
rates the  scriptures,  from  the  church,  ministry,  and  sacraments, 
which  are  "integral  [)arts"   of  the  plan  of  salvation. 

3.  That  it  encourages  schism  and  heresy,  by  declaring  that  all 
systems  of  religious  belief  derived  from  the  Bible  are  "equally  safe 
for  salvation;"  and  maintaining  that  all  are  equally  entitled  to  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit. 

4.  As  a  conclusion  from  all  this, — That  the  principle  is  subver- 
sive of  revealed  religion. 

5.  Hence  it  is  inferred,  that  the  fi-iends  of  the  Bible  Society  are  ac- 
tuated by  mistaken  and  intemperate  zeal,  and  not  by  genuine  chari- 
ty: and  that  they  who  are  sufficiently  cool  and  perspicacious  to  see 
through  all  these  delusions,  are  bound  to  set  themselves  in  open  op- 
position to  this  novel  scheme  of  a  spurious  and  deceptious  libe- 
rality. 

We  shall  consider  these  particulars  in  order,  and  as  we  go  on. 
notice  some  other  matters  which  the  bishop's  peculiar  mariner  for- 
ces on  our  attention. 

This  part  of  his  Vindication  fills  nearly  thirty  octavo  pages.  Yet 
after  his  statement,  pp.  77 — 79,  we  find  scarcely  a  new,  we  mean  an 
addition'al  idea,  in  all  that  he  says.  It  is  a  ringing  of  changes  pro- 
ductive to  the  Reviewer  of  extreme  weariness;  and  an  intermixture 
of  invectivesand  coarse  personalities,  which  every  one  concerned 
for  the  honor  of  the  christian  religion,  and  the  credit  of  the  chris- 
tian ministry  must  deeply  lament.  That  our  readers  may  have  at 
once,  nearly  the  whole  of  the  bishop's  scheme,  and  some  sample  of 
his  spirit,  we  give  the  following  very  long  extract. 

"Notes  and  comments  on  any  book,  are  always  intended  to  explain  and 
render  more  intelligible,  and  of  course  more  practically  useful,  the  subject 
matter  contained  in  the  book.  This  is  the  declared  object  of  those  who  com- 
pile them;  and  the  benefit  is  acknowledged  by  all  who  read  them.  The 
exclusion  of  notes  and  comments  then,  is  in  effect  to  say,  that  the  book  re- 
quires no  explanation — that  it  is  sufficiently  intelligible  in  itself.  This  being 
true  of  books  in  general,  it  must  also  be  true  of  the  Bible  as  a  particular 
book,  unless  it  be  shewn  that  it  is  an  exception  to  the  rule.  But  the  com- 
mon sense  and  common  usage  of  the  christian  world  proves,  that  it  is  not  an 
exception,  tliere  being  no  book  in  the  woi-ld,  upon  the  explanation  and  il- 
lustration of  which,  so  much  labor  and  research  have  been  bestowed.  The 
adoption  of  a  principle,  therefore,  which  excludes  notes  and  comments  from 
the  Bible,  does  in  fact  assert,  that  the  Bible  requires  no  extraneous  help  to 
understand  \t  aright,  and,  (^as  it  is  assumed  in  the  Sermon,)  that  it  is  exclu- 
sively sufficient  for  its  own  interpretation.  1  have  therefore  done  no  vio- 
lence or  injustice  to  the  Bible  Society  principle,  in  holding  it  responsible 
for  this  most  just  apd  direct  conclusion  from  it.  But  further,  as  I  have  done 
no  violence  or  injustice  to  the  principle  adopted  and  acted  upon  b\  these 
Bible  Societies,  so  neitlier  have  I  drawn  from  it  a  single  consequence,  that 
is  not  equally  direct  and  unavoidable.  For,  if  the  B  ble  is  in  itself  so  clear 
and  plain  as  to  require  neither  notes  or  comments  to  render  it  "more  intelli- 
gible, it  follows  inseparably,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Bide  Society,  as  a  body, 
that  there  is  no  dangr-r  ti  any  man  of  iiistaking  its  meaning,  or  misapplying 
its  truths.  But  the  Bible  Society,  as  a  body,  are  aware  of  the  fact  (and  the 
very  .materials  of  which  it  is  composed  coifirra  the  fact  to  their  senses,)  that 
the  christian  world  is  split  up  and  divided  into  hundreds  of  opposite  systems 
of  doctrine  and  practice,  all  professedly  drawn  from  the  Bible,  as  its  exclu- 


Mei)iew  of  Bishop  Raveuseroft's  Vindication  and  Defence*  1ST 

sive  truth.  Hence,  it  is  the  opinion  of  that  body,  witnessed  by  the  adoption 
of  the  principle  as  their  fundamental  rule,  that  all  these  various  and  oppo- 
sing systems  of  religious  profession,  are  equally  consistent  with  the  truth  of 
God's  word,  and  equally  safe  for  salvation.  Nor  is  there  an  escape  from  this 
consequence,  that  will  not  show,  that  the  favonte  principle  is  wrohg,  and 
ought  to  be  abandoned.  For,  of  necessity,  the  S.iciety  must  either  believe 
that  all  varieties  of  religious  profession  drawn  froni  the  Bible,  are  equally  right, 
in  the  sense  ot  b^ing  equ  illy  safe,  or  tht-y  lUst  be  lev  that  s  >me  )f  them  are 
unscri|)tnral  aiid  unsife.  If  iheform.'r  of  t  se  alternatives  is  adapted,  the  prin- 
ciple is  dt-nionstrated  to  be  productive  of  divisions  in  reli.uton  without  limit. 
If  the  latter  shall  be  resorted  to,  it  shows  tht  prinriple  to  be  justly  liable  to 
the  charge  of  withholding  from  the  Bible  what  is  essential  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  lis  contents,  and  to  a  just  application  of  its  life-giving  truths. 

That  such  conclusions  and  consequences  are  not  seen  by  the  individual 
members,  1  am  well  aware ;  that  they  are  hid  and  concealed  from  them,  by 
the  intrinsic  merit  of  the  work,  and  the  enthusiasm  it  so  powerfully  kindles, 
I  can  readily  conceive ;  yet  that  they  are  unavoidable  from  the  principle,  is 
beyond  all  reasonable  denial,  and  it  is  for  this  reason,  and  this  alone,  that  I 
have  raised  my  voice  against  it,  and  not  without  taking  Into  consideration 
how  much  more  probable  it  vas,  tnat  1  was  mistaken — than  that  thousands 
of  great  and  learned  and  pious  mi-n  should  he  guilty  of  such  an  oversight,  as 
to  adopt  for  the  foundation  of  the  most  ext-nded  religious  co-operation,  a 
principle,  demonstrably  subversive  of  all  revealed  ReUgion. 

But  the  Bible  Society  principle  operates  yet  more  extensively,  and  more 
certainly,  against  the  interests  of  reveal,  d  Religion,  than  in  the  exclusion  of 
all  helps  to  understand  and  apply  the  scriptures  according  to  their  true 
meaning,  and  to  their  saving  purpose  ;  for  it  auihorises  the  conclusion,  that 
the  sacraments  are  not  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  word  of  God.  All 
comments  are  excluded.  Preaching  and  the  sacraments  are,  in  the  truest 
sense  of  the  word,  comments  on  the  scriptures — comments  which  God  has 
commanded  to  accompany  them;  yet,  by  this  principle,  these  are  separated 
from  the  Bible,  not  only  by  fair  and  necessary  inference  from  the  principle 
as  adopted,  but  practically  and  in  fact.  This  consequence  from  the  Bible 
Society  principle,  was  stated  in  the  Sermon,  and  pressed  as  an  argument 
against  it.  But  of  this  you  have  taken  no  notice,  beyond  giving  the  para- 
graph in  which  it  is  found,  and  resorting  to  your  ready  scape-goat,  the  book 
of  Common  Prayer,  as  what  I  mean  by  the  church,  the  ministry  and  the  sa- 
craments. But,  sir,  you  knew  belter.  You  knew  well  what  my  real  mean- 
ing was  in  this  objection,  and  you  felt  that  it  was  fatal;  and  yet  the  princi- 
pie  which  goes  this  length  must  be  supported. 

Against  this  objection,  I  have  heard  many,  and  read  some  answers;  but 
not  one  that  to  my  mind  was  even  plausible.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands, 
that  a  proposition  to  send  the  sacraments  with  the  word,  would  be  the  signal 
to  dissolve  the  society.  It  is  confessed,  that  no  such  thing  is  contemplated 
by  the  society.  By  some  it  is  replied,  that  the  sacraments  are  already  fur- 
nished. But  even  admitting  this,  as  it  respects  christian  lands — (though  the 
society  are  not  entitled  to  it)  yet  it  is  not  inte,  as  respects  the  heathen,  who 
are  embraced  in  the  operations  of  the  society.  I'he  principle,  as  to  them, 
is  an  actual  separation  of  the  sacraments  from  the  word  of  God ;  and  its  ope- 
ration in  christian  lands,  is  to  weaken  the  impression  of  their  indispensable 
necessity  to  give  the  word  its  saving  effect.  It  is  in  vain  to  contend,  that 
the  society  is  associated  for  a  specific  purpose,  which  does  not  embrace  the 
sending  the  sacraments  with  the  word-— because  no  necessity  can  be  con- 
ceived for  their  separation — because  no  christian  can  comprehend  any  sav- 
ing benefit  from  the  mere  letter  of  scripture,  without  the  sacraments — be- 
cause no  necessity  exised  for  the  adoption  of  a  principle  thug  pregnant 
ivith  mischief.  If  it  was  felt  to  be  a  christian  duty  to  disseminate  as  widely 
as  possible  the  word  of  life,  the  duty  was  equally  christian,  and  equally  im- 
perious—not to  deprive  the  word  of  those  accompaniments  which  the  wis- 
dom of  God  had  joined  inseparably  with  it,  as  essential  to  its  saving  effect. 
I  cannot  perceive  any  just  ground  for  the  exercise  of  discretion  even  in  this 
case,  particularly  as  respects  the  heathen— and  far  less  of  justification  for 
*hc  adoption  of  this  principle  as  their  bond  of  union,  and  the  best  method 


1S8  Review  of  Bishop  KavenscroJt*s  Vindication  and  Defence, 

which  their  collective  wisdom  and  piety  could  devise,  for  presenting  to  all 
nations,  the  -whole  counsel  of  God  for  their  salvation." — pp.  77 — 79. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  several  particulars  abore  stated, 
in  their  order.     And 

I.     As  to  Nutci  and  Comments — and  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip- 
iures. 

On  this  point,  bishop  R.  maintains,  with  a  confidence  perfectl}^ 
sui  generis,  that  according  to  the  Bible  Society  principle,  notes  and 
conjments  are  unnecess;iry.  There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  words 
necessary  and  unnecessary,  which,  as  the  bishop  has  not  noticed  it, 
we  must  explain.  A  thing  is  said  to  be  necessary  in  common  speech, 
when  we  cannot  do  well  without  it.  Thus  a  particular  kind  of  food 
is  said  to  be  a  necessary  of  life,  when  every  one  knows  that  it  is 
possible  to  prolong  life  in  the  use  of  something  else.  One  thing  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  another,  when  that  other  cannot  be  accom- 
plished or  attained  without  it.  In  this  sense,  notes  and  comments 
may  be  affirmed  or  denied  to  be  necessary  for  a  right  understanding 
of  the  scriptures,  according  to  the  limitations  given  to  the  phrase, 
[a  right  understanding  of  the  scriptures.]  If  it  means  an  under- 
standing of  the  difficult  parts  of  scripture,  neither  the  Bible  Society, 
nor  any  man  of  common  sense  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ever  denied 
the  necessity  of  notes  and  comments.  But  if  it  means  an  under- 
standing of  the  plain,  obvious,  fundamental  truths  of  scripture,  which 
show  men  the  way  of  salvation,  the  Bible  Society  principle  does  as- 
sume that  notes  and  comments  are  unnecessary. — Once  more;  if 
the  word  necessary  is  used  in  the  loose,  familiar  sense  of  useful,  ex- 
pedient, 4'c.  the  Bible  Society  does  by  no  means  deny  the  necessity 
of  notes  and  comments.  It  says  not  a  single  word  in  relation  to  them 
in  this  meaning. 

The  intelligent  reader  of  the  quotation  made  above,  will  readily 
perceive,  that  the  writer  had  in  view  none  of  these  distinctions; 
otherwise,  he  could  not  so  entirely  have  mistaken  the  Bible  Society 
principle,  as  to  have  expressed  himself  thus:  >'But  further,  as  I 
have  done  no  violence  or  injustice  to  the  principle  adopted  and  acted 
upon  by  these  Bible  Societies,  so  neither  have  I  drawn  from  it  a 
single  consequence  that  is  not  equally  direct  and  unavoidable.  For 
if  the  Bible  is  in  itself  so  clear  and  plain  as  to  require  neither  notes 
or  comments  to  render  it  more  intelligible,  it  follows  inseparably, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  Bible  Society,  as  a  body,  that  there  is  no 
danger  to  any  man  of  mistaking  its  meaning,  or  misapplying  its 
truths."  Here  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  that  unsatisfactory  me- 
thod of  reasoning,  which  puts  into  one's  premises,  positions  which 
his  antagonist  denies,  and  deriving  from  them  conclusions  which  he 
never  can  admit.  Bishop  R.  might  reason  until  doomsday,  and  ne- 
ver convmce  a  friend  of  the  Bible  Society  by  logic  like  this.  When 
measures  of  this  kind  are  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  an  ad- 
vantage, it  is  treating  them  very  mildly  to  call  them  unfair.  We  will 
not  say,  that  when  bishop  R.  ascribed  principles  to  the  Bible  Society, 
which  they  do  not  hold,  that  he  knew  better.  We  can  account  for 
his  bad  reasoning  very  satisfactorily  to  ourselves,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  he  did  not  know  any  better;  and  we  had  rather  believe  that 
lie  was  in  ignorance  and  error,  than  that  he  knowingly  misstated  the 


Keview  of  Bishop  UavenscrojVs  Vindication  and  Defence.  ISt) 

principle  which  he  opposed.  The  bishop  is  not  infallible:  he  does 
aot  pretend  to  it — he  will  therefore  bear  wiih  us,  if  we  impute  te 
bad  reasoning,  what  more  violent  men  are  accustomed  to  impute  to 
bad  faith.  Sir,  7jou  knew  no  better.  But  indeed,  sir,  it  never  en- 
tered into  the  mind  of  the  Bible  Society,  that  the  scripture  requires 
neither  notes  nor  comments  to  make  it  more  intelligible:  not  one  of 
its  members  ever  dreamed,  we  dare  say,  that  there  is  no  danger  to 
any  man  of  mistaking  its  meaning.  The  Bible  Society  is  a  company 
formed  for  the  distribution  of  the  scriptures  alone.  This  supposes 
neither  more  nor  less  than  this,  that  it  is  an  advantage  to  a  man  to 
possess  the  Bible,  if  he  has  no  other  means  of  religious  instruction. 
And  this  is  the  proposition  which  the  enemy  of  the  Bible  Society 
ought  to  set  himself  to  prove,  viz.  You  do  an  injury  by  giving  the 
Bible,  without  giving  also  other  means  of  obtaining  salvation.  But 
we  have  seen  no  one  calling  himself  a  christian,  who  is  prepared  to 
meet  the  position  in  this  plain  and  direct  form. 

The  utter  weakness  and  injustice  of  this  allegation  against  the 
Bible  Society  may  be  shewn  by  a  case  which  involves  no  prejudice 
or  party  spirit.  Suppose  that  there  should  occur  within  the  diocese 
of  North  Carolina  a  time  of  extreme  scarcity.  The  wealthy  peo- 
ple of  that  respectable  state,  of  all  denominations — for  charity  is 
not  exclusive — would  probably  unite  in  an  association  to  relieve  the 
distress,  and  prevent  the  poor  from  starvation.  Suppose  farther, 
that  the  projectors  of  this  benevolent  enterprise,  considering  the 
extent  of  the  misery  to  be  relieved,  and  their  limited  resources, 
should  resolve  that  the  society  would  undertake  to  furnish  the  suf- 
fering poor  with  nothing  but  bread,  what  would  be  thought  of  him 
who  should  rail  at  this  association,  and  endeavor  to  bring  odium  on 
it,  by  charging  it  as  a  body,  with  holding  the  opinion  that  the  poor 
ought  to  have  neither  meat  nor  salt  with  their  bread?  Suppose  still 
farther,  that  it  were  known  as  far  as  the  respectable  state  of  North 
Carolina  is  known,  that  the  members  of  this  great  benevolent  society 
were  united  in  other  smaller  societies,  of  different  names,  but  yet 
for  the  express  purpose  of  affording  other  aliment  besides  bread, 
and  that  they  were  equally  zealous  in  this  work  of  benevolence  as 
in  the  other,  giving  salt,  and  meat,  and  vegetables,  &c.  as  they  could, 
what  would  every  body  think  of  the  sanity  of  that  man,  who,  in  the 
face  of  plain  facts,  and  repeated  denials,  and  in  the  very  teeth  of 
common  sense,  would  persist  in  the  declaration,  "You  associate  on- 
ly for  the  purpose  of  giving  bread  to  the  poor;  and  as  a  body  you 
maintain  that  they  ought  to  have  nothing  else" — But,  my  dear  sir, 
we  do  give  them  meat  as  we  can — "I  don't  care  what  your  private 
sentiments  are,  or  what  your  practice  is;  as  a  society,  you  declare 
that  the  poor  can  thrive  and  labor  just  as  well  with  bread  alone,  as 
with  bread,  salt,  meat  and  vegetables." — Precisely  such,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  us,  is  the  wonderful  mistake,  and  the  equally  wonderful 
pertinacity  and  confidence  of  bishop  R.  in  relation  to  the  principle 
of  the  Bible  Society.  Yet  so  is  he  blinded  by  party  feelings,  as  to 
know  no  better — and  so  are  many  others  blinded  as  to  think  this  ar- 
gument "unanswerable." — How  often  must  it  be  repeated,  that  the 
Bible  Society  principle  assumes  nothing  but  that  it  is  a  good  work 
to  furnish  the  whole  human  family  with  the  Bible? 
18 


146  Jleriew  of  Bishop  Ra'cciiscrqft*s  Vindicaiiou  and  Mejeucc. 

This  assumption  does,  indeed,  imply  the  sufficiency  of  the 
icriptures.  Let  us,  therefore,  hear  bishop  Kavenscroft  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

But  here  again  he  writes  with  marvellous  obscurity;  which  ren- 
ders it  extremely  difficult  to  understand  precisely  wliat  his  settled 
opinions  are.  In  the  extract  made  above,  the  Bible  Society  is 
charged  with  holding  -'that  the  Bible  requires  no  extraneous  helps 
to  understand  it  aright,  and  that  it  is  exclusively  sufficient  for  its  own 
interpretation."  At  page  85,  the  charge  is,  that  "the  Bible  Socie- 
ty principle  asserts  the  sufficiency  of  the  scriptures  for  salvation, 
without  the  church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments." 

And  in  another  place,  he  right  curiously  explains  to  us  what  he 
means  by  the  sufficiency  ofthe  Scriptures.  As  this  is  a  very  strik- 
ing and  peculiarly  characteristic  passage,  we  are  afraid  to  abridge 
it,  lest  we  should  unintentionally  raistate  its  meaning.  Our  read- 
ers must  have  the  opportunity  of  judging  for  themselves. 

*But,  "we  maintain  the  sufFiciency  of  the  scriptures,"  unquestionablyj 
and  even  their  exclusive  sufficiency — wliich  is  the  error  charged  to  the  "no 
comment"  principle,  and  you  are  drawn  out  to  defend.  But  their  suffi- 
ciency to  what  ?  To  the  "  efficient  communication  of  spiritual  instruction 
*' without  the  ordinances  ofthe  church?"  If  this  is  your  meaning,  as  it 
certainly  is  of  the  "no  comment"  principle,  I  consider  it  subversive  of  all 
revealed  religion,  being  plainly  contrary  to  the  word  of  God. — If  it  is  not 
your  meaning,  as  I  believe  it  is  not,  you  ought  to  have  been  more  explicit.— 
Neither  yourself,  nor  any  other,  maintains  more  absolutely  than  I  do,  the 
sufficiency  of  Scripture;  but  it  is  their  sufficiency  to  make  them  "wise  un- 
to salvation,"  not  to  save  them.  It  is  their  sufficiency  to  direct  men  what 
they  must  do  to  be  saved.  It  is  their  sufficiency,  as  an  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  manners,  when  truly  interpreted  and  followed.  It  is  their  suffi- 
ciency, to  direct  and  bring  sinners  to  Christ  for  life  and  salvation,  in  the 
external  appointments  of  the  church,  the  ministry  and  tlie  sacrameuts— and 
not  their  sufficiency,  as  a  substitute  for  these  integral  parts  in  the  plan  of 
salvation. 

'But  while  I  maintain  their  full  sufficiency  for  all  these  purposes,  I  also 
maintain  that  they  are  not  in  such  wise  sufficient,  tliat  men  cannot  be  mista- 
ken or  misled,  in  drawing  from  ihem  their  true  meaning. — I  therefore  as- 
sert, against  the  "no  comment"  principle,  the  lUiliti/ and  the  necessiti/,  oi' 
explanations,  illustrations,  expositions,  enforcements  of  their  sense,  by  notes 
and  comments,  not  only  in  the  literary  meaning  of  these  words,  but  in  the 
higher,  equally  just  and  more  profitable  application  of  them  to  the  ordinan- 
ces of  the  Gospel,  as  alone  giving  life  and  power,  and  assurance  to  the 
word.  This  is  the  sense,  and  the  only  sense,  in  which  tlie  Scriptures  are 
considered  unsufficient  to  their  own  interpretation,  by  either  the  Bishop  of 
Limerick,  or  the  Bishop  of  North  Carolina.* — pp.  88,  89. 

As  to  the  first  sentences  in  this  extract,  we  can  only  say,  Davus 
non  (Edipus — we  have  no  skill  in  solving  enigmas,  or  interpreting 
mysterious,  oracular  sentences  ;  and  we  much  doubt  whether  we 
could  make  out  the  meaning  here,  even  if  we  had  old  Fincentius 
Lirinensisio  help  us.  But  that  we  may  come  to  the  truth  in  regard 
to  this  important  subject,  let  us  try  to  get  at  the  precise  meaning  of 
the  word  sufficiency.  It  implies  the  idea  of  suitableness  or  adap- 
tation to  a  purpose  ;  and  when  appropriated,  as  it  generally  is  to 
means,  or  causes,  it  signifies  their  adequateness  to  accomplish  the 
end  in  view.  The  force  ofthe  term,  in  correct  language,  is  never 
carried  farther.  A  sufficient  cause,  in  physics,  is  a  cause  which 
accounts  for  the  phenomena;  a  sufficient  argument,  in  logic,  is  one 


Jismexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl's  Vindicalion  and  JOefence*  14  i 

which  proves  the  truth.  When  the  Bible  Society  principle,  then, 
assumes,  as  we  admit  tliat  it  does,  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures; 
it  of  course  assumes  their  suflicienc}',  their  adequateness  to  accom 
plish  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  distributed.  What  is  this 
purpose?  The  constitution  of  no  Bible  Society  that  we  have  evej 
seen,  gives  an  answer  to  this  question.  That  noble  institution,  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  simply  states,  that  "  the  sole 
object  shall  be,  to  encourage  a  wider  circulation  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, without  note  or  comment" — and  says  not  a  single  word  as  to 
the  design.  As  far  as  our  recollection  serves  us,  this  example  has 
been  followed  by  all  other  Societies  of  any  importance  throughout 
the  world.  But  it  would  be  monstrous  to  suppose  that  so  many 
associations  have  been  formed  without  some  purpose  to  be  accom- 
plished by  the  distribution  of  the  Bible.  Well,  what  was  it?  Lei 
us  suppose  that  the  members,  or  if  the  bishop  prefers  the  phrase, 
that  the  Society  as  a  body,  believed  that  the  Scriptures  are  suffi- 
cient "to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation;"  sufficient  "to  direct 
men  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved;"  and  for  this  purpose  engaged 
in  the  distribution  of  the  Bible;  why  should  bishop  R.  condema 
and  oppose  them?  Is  it  not  a  work  of  christian  love;  of  true  be- 
nevolence, to  "direct  men  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved?"  Our 
furious  antibiblist,  as  "absolutely  as  any  one  can  do,  maintains  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures"  for  this  purpose.  How  then,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  opinions,  can  he  be  justified  in  his  unexpected, 
and  violent  opposition  to  the  Bible  Society?  We  venture  to  say 
that  not  a  friend  of  the  Bible  Society  in  Europe  or  America  expects 
more  from  the  Bible  than  to  "make  men  wise  unto  salvation." 
We  never  heard  of  one  who  carried  his  views  of  the  sufficiency  of 
the  Scriptures  farther  than  this. 

But  it  is  evident  that  the  bishop  uses  words  in  an  uncommon 
sense;  and  that  he  has  some  very  queer  notions  for  a  Protestant,  or 
le  never  would  have  talked  in  the  strange  way  he  has  done.  Let 
ihe  reader  look  at  the  passage  quoted  above,  once  more.  Let  him 
consider  the  positive  and  negative  statements  there  made,  and  won- 
der. The  Scriptures  are  sufficient, — To  make  men  wise  unto  sal« 
vation — not  to  save  them — to  direct  men  what  they  must  do  to  be 
saved — infallibly  to  regulate  faith  and  manners  when  truly  inter- 
preted and  followed — to  direct  and  bring  sinners  to  Christ  in  the 
external  appointments  of  the  church,  the  mmistry,  and  the  sacra- 
ments. And  they  are  not  sufficient  as  substitutes  tor  those  integral 
parts  ofthe  plan  of  snlvation,  the  church,  ministry  and  sacraments — - 
not  in  such  wise  sufficient,  that  men  cannot  be  mistaken,  or  misled^ 
in  drawing  from  them  their  true  meaning.  And  therefore  the  bish- 
op asserts  a2;ainstthe  no  comment  principle,  the  utility  and  necessi- 
ty 0^  explanations,  illustrations,  expositions,  enforcements,  &.C.  &c. — 
Who  will  denj'  that  here  is  copia  verborum,  if  not  lucidus  ordo? 
But  did  any  one  ever  so  waste  his  strength  in  beating  the  air?  Who 
ever  said  that  the  scriptures  could  save  men — or  that  they  were 
substitutes  for  the  sacraments — or  that  they  could  not  be  mistaken? 
No  friend  of  the  Bible  Society  ever  uttered  such  a  sentiment,  we 
venture  to  say,  or  ever  thought  of  such  folly.  While  the  bishop 
then  is  laying  about  him  so  vehementlvj  he  does  not  tcffiQU  "5.    We 


142  Review  nf  Bishop  llaveuseroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence^ 

only  protest  against  the  deception  here  unintentionally  practised, 
in  making  believe  that  while  he  is  knocking  to  pieces  his  own  men 
of  straw,  he  is  cudgelling,  or  (we  believe  the  term  is,)  "  tisting'' 
our  reviewer,  or  any  other  friend  of  the  Bible  cause. 

But  it  is  evident  that  the  bishop  means  something  more  than  is  at 
the  first  glance  apparent;  because,  he  says,  in  opposition  to  the  Bi- 
ble Society,  that  the  Scriptures  are  not  svjicient  to  save  men; — and 
he  lays  great  stress  on  the  opinion,  that  they  are  not  substitutes  for 
these  "integral  parts  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  the  ctiurch,  ministry, 
and  sacraments;  nny  he  sajs  that  the  sacratnents  alone  give  "life 
and  power,  and  assurance  to  the  word."  He  h.id  previously  main- 
tained that  "notes  and  comments  were  essential  to  the  right  under- 
standing of  the  Strictures,  and  to  a  just  application  of  its  life-giving 
truths."  He  may  be  considered,  then,  in  relation  to  the  sufficien- 
cy of  the  Scriptures,  as  maintaining  two  negative  propositions. 

1.  That  the  Scriptures  are  in  such  wise  insufficient,  that  no 
man,  without  notes  and  comments  can  rightly  understand  tbetn, 
and  apply  their  truths,  so  as  to  cherish  a  warranted  hope  of  salva- 
tion. 

2.  That  the  plan  of  salvation  consists  of  four  "integral  parts." 

1.  The  Holy  Scriptures. 

2.  The  church.  [Q,uere — How  will  bishop  R.  define  the  church, 
in  this  connexion.] 

3.  The  ministry  [consisting  of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons.] 

4.  The  Sacraments,  namely.  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
And  either  of  these  being  wanting,  the  whole  plan  is  marred,  so  as 

to  be  inefficient  for  salvation. 

We  must  be  pardoned  for  refusing  to  subscribe  to  these  dogmas. 
They  are  unsupported  by  evidence — they  derogate  from  the  honor 
of  God's  word — take  away  the  right  of  private  judgment — subvert 
the  liberties  of  men — give  to  the  church  (i.  e.  the  clergy)  a  power 
which  God  has  never  given,  and,  in  a  word,  are  highly  injurious  to 
the  best  interests  of  society. 

1.  We  deny  that  notes  and  comments  are  essential  to  the  right 
xmderstanding  of  the  Bible.  That,  in  any  case,  is  essential,  with- 
out which  a  thing  cannot  be.  He  rightly  understands  the  gospel, 
who,  under  the  influence  of  its  truths,  repents,  believes,  and  lives 
a  holy  life  in  love  to  God  and  man.  If  notes  and  comments  are 
essential  to  a  right  understanding  of  the  Bible,  then  no  one  ever 
did  so  understand  it,  as  to  repent,  believe,  and  live  a  holy  life, 
without  notes  and  comments.  But  this  is  directly  contrary  to  facts, 
as  well  known  and  as  clearly  established,  as  any  facts  of  this  kind 
possibly  can  be.  Some  of  the  most  pious  persons  ever  known, 
have  become  so,  by  reading  the  Bible  without  notes  »nd  comments. 
In  a  case  of  this  kind  one  fact  is  worth  a  cart-load  of  reasons.  It 
strengthens  the  argument  to  observe  that  many  thousands  of  per- 
sons have  read  notes  and  comments,  yea  many  have  written  them, 
and  have  preached  the  gospel,  and  admini^te!ed  the  sacraments, 
without  having  ever  rightly  understood  the  Bible. 

But  in  the  next  place,  the  Bible  was  clearly  intended  by  its  au- 
thor for  common  use.  Accordingly  it  is  written  in  a  style  of  re- 
markable pl^nness  and  simplicity*      Its  fundamental  truths  are 


Meview  ofBishep  RavmscrqfVs  Vindication  and  Defence.  143 

facts  as  perfectly  intelligible  as  any  other  facts.     So  that  a  plain 
man,  desirous  to  know  the  truth,  may  learn  from  that  blessed  book 
every  thing  necessary  to  make  him  ivise  to  salvation.     If  it  be  al- 
leged that  there  are  many  things,  which  he  cannot  understand  ;  we 
admit  it  freely.     So,  also,  there  are  many  things  which  the  writers 
of  notes   and  comments    cannot  understand.     But   all   may   learn 
enough  to  let  them  understand  what  Ihey  must  do  to  be  saved. — 
Bishop  R.  admits  this  in  his  statement  respe^^ting  the  efficacy  of  the 
Bible.     What  more  can  notes  and   comments  do?     Can  they  save 
him?     Surely  bishop  R.  will  not  say  that  any  thing  in  the  universe 
caij  do  this,  but  God  alone.     Surely  then  it  is  better,  incomparably 
better,  that  men  should   have  the  Bible,  than  be  without  it.     For 
the  Bible  possesses  the  attribute  of  sufficiency,  as  far  as  this  attri- 
bute  can  be  predicated   of  the   means  of  salvation  at  all.      For  if 
men  make  the  right  us^e  of  the  information  communicated  by  the 
Bible,  they  will  assuredly  be  saved.     And  bishop  R.   can  say  no 
more  respecting  the  church,  ministry  and  sacraments.     The  case 
is  about  as  plain  as  this:      Bishop  R.  says  that  bread  and  meat  are 
essential  to  the  support  of  human   life.      We   deny  this,  and  allege 
the  fact  that  many  have  lived  on  bread  alone.     Bishop  R.  persists 
in  his  assertion,  and  says  it  is  manifest  that  God   intended  that  man 
should  live  on   bread  and  meat;  and  because  he  cannot  give  both, 
he  will  give  none.     Well,  what  sort  of  meat  will  you  give?     Here 
arises  a  great  dispute — some  are  for  the  "roast  beef  of  Old  England, 
&c.  &c." — Agreement  is  impossible — But  all  agree   that  bread  is 
good,  and  are  willing  to  distiibute  freely  and  abundantly.     Bishop 
R.,  however,  vehemently  exclaims,  "your  charity  is  spurious- 
break  up  your  Society — you  pretend  to  give  bread;  and  you  give 
only  flour — every  man  will  cook  it  in   his  own  way — the  people 
will   be  poisoned — not  a  soul  will  be  left  alive !" — With  humble 
submission,  we  do  not  think  so — while  gentlemen  eat  hot  buttered 
rolls,  many  an  honest  citizen  has  lived,  and  raised  fine  hearty  chil- 
dren on  hoecake.     These  plain,  familiar  illustrations,  may  oflfend 
the  fastidious — But  we  employ  them,  because  the  subject  has  been 
Avonderfully   bewildered  by  the  perverse  ingenuity  of  party  spirit. 
We  close  our  remarks  on  this  part  of  the  suhject  with  a  quotation 
from  an  excellent  work  by  Gastrell,  formerly  bishop  of  Chester, 
entitled  Christian  Institutes,  or  the  Sincere  Word  of  God;  being  a  plain 
impartial  account  of  the  -whole  Faith  and  duty  of  a  christian,  collected 
out  of  the  zvritings  of  the  Old  and  JVeav  Testament.     *'  For,  all  that 
is  needful  for  us  to  know  of  the  common  salvation,  is  so  plainly  set 
forth  to  us,  that  he  may  run  that  readeth:     But  if  the  gospel  be  hid, 
it  is  hid  to  them  only  that  are  lost,  in  whom  the  God  of  this  world 
hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  which  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of 
the  glorious  gospel  of  Christ  should  siiine  unto  them.     The  Scrip- 
tures then  being  plain  and  easy,  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  make  us 
■wise   unto  salvation  through   faith   which  is  in  Jesus  Christ,   we 
ought  to  read  them  with  the  same  sincerity  with  which  they  were 
written,  &.c." — pa.  6. 

2.  We  deny  that  the  "  plan  of  salvation"  is  made  up  of  "  inte- 
gral parts,"  so  that  if  any  one  of  them  is  wanting,  the  whole  plan 
is  so  marred  as  to  be  inefficient.    Bishop  R.  seems  to  haye  some 


:r44  Ufcitv)  of  Bixliop  Ravenseroft^s  Tindicfilion  and  Defence. 

?uch  notion  as  this:  namely,  that  the  church  has  received  certaio 
means,  which  are  to  be  employed  each  in  accomplishing  a  certain 
part  of  the  work  of  salvation — thus,  the  Scriptures  inform  one  what 
he  must  do  to  be  saved — the  sacraments  afford  the  way  of  going  to 
Christ — and  the  ministry  gives  assurance  of  salvation,  or  binds  the 
source  of  all  mercy  to  fulfil  his  promises.  So  that  if  one  has  only 
the  Scriptures  be  can  only  be  made  wise  unto  salvation — but  not  be 
saved?  And  so  of  a  detiriency  in  regard  to  the  other  "  integral 
parts"  of  the  plan  of  salvation!  If  he  does  not  mean  this,  what 
does  he  mean?  And  if  he  does  mean  this,  to  what  school  of  the- 
ology does  he  belong? 

In  religion,  there  are  no  physical  influences.  The  whole  pow- 
er of  the  plan  of  salvation,  in  all  its  parts,  is  moral  power.  It  is 
the  TRUTH,  made  efficient  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
prepares  men  for  heaven,  by  making  them  holy.  And  it  is  the 
great  business  of  the  church,  to  declare  the  truth. 

Now  the  whole  truth  respecting  man's  salvation  is  revealed  in 
Scripture.  To  this,  none  may  add;  from  it  none  may  take  even  a 
jot  or  tittle.  If  any  human  being  receives  the  truth  as  it  is  taught 
in  the  Bible,  so  as  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  live  a 
life  of  holiness,  he  shall  be  saved.  The  church,  ministry  and  sa- 
craments are  nothing  more  than  various  means,  employed  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  the  truth  to  the  understanding  and  the  heart; 
and  they  have  not  the  least  degree  of  efficiency,  except  so  far  as 
they  effect  this  purpose.  It  is  utterly  a  superstitious  notion  to  sup- 
pose that  any  of  these  means  derive  efficacy  or  virtue  from  the  of- 
ficiating priest,  by  the  consecrating  prayer.  Bishop  R's.  reason- 
ing is  a  revival  of  the  antiqurited  and  mischievous  notion,  that  there 
is  a  virtue  in  some  of  the  "integral  parts  of  the  plan  of  salvation," 
without  which  the  Bible  cannot  be  efficient.  The  "  church,  min- 
istry and  sacraments,  when  used  accordmg  to  the  intention  of 
Christ,  hold  forth  precisely  the  truths  taught  in  the  Bible,  and  no 
others.  Now  as  the  Bible  reveals  the  xu'ltole  truth,  according  to 
which  sinners  are  saved;  the  Holy  Spirit  may  make,  and  as  far  as 
we  can  judge  in  any  such  case,  has  made  the  Bible  efficient  to  the 
salvation  of  sinners.  In  this  sense,  the  fViends  of  the  Bible  Society 
do  maintain  the  sufficiency  of  (he  Word  of  God — and  its  exclu- 
sive sufficiency: — not  indeed  to  save  men;  but  under  [he  Holy 
Spirit  to  lead  them  to  Christ,  who  alone  can  save  them.  This 
may  be  done,  without  any  other  means.  It  is  therefore,  an  unspeaka- 
ble blessing  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  have  the  Bible.  Bishop 
R.  says  that  this  opinion  and  the  practice  growing  out  of  it  is  plain- 
ly contrary  to  the  Word  of  God.  But  he  has  quoted  no  text  to 
prove  it — And  he  ought  to  remember  that  the  time  has  gone  by^ 
when  the  word  of  a  bishop  was  taken  for  proof. 

We  maintain,  on  the  very  same  pi  inciples,  that  other  means  of 
conveying  the  truth  to  the  mind  of  a  sinner  niriy,  through  the  agen- 
cy of  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  sufficient  for  salvation.  Tfiere  are,  for 
instance,  thousands  of  persons  in  christian  lands,  who  cannot  read 
the  Bible.  But  they  may,  by  catechetical  instruction,  be  taught 
the  truths  of  revelation;  they  may  learn  to  understand  the  signs  of 
God'6  covenant;  and  in  the  uge  of  the  sacraments  be  prepared  for 


M&ciew  of  Bishop  S.aveuscroft*s  VindkaUon  and  Defence.  iA6 

heaven.  These  are  persons  born  blind  and  deaf,  and  so  are  cu!; 
off  from  the  use  of  a  large  part  of  the  means  appointed;  yet  truth 
sufficient  for  their  salvation  may  be  communicated  to  their  under- 
standings. The  only  essential  point  is,  to  carry  the  truth  to  the  un- 
derstanding and  conscience,  so  (hat  men  will  exercise  "repentance 
towards  God,  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  When  they  do 
this,  scripture  gives  the  most  positive  assurance  that  they  will  be 
saved. 

All  the  means  appointed  by  the  gracious  Head  of  the  Church, 
however,  are  adapted  to  the  end  proposed.  He  who  enjoys  them 
all,  has  the  greatest  advantages  in  regard  to  salvation  which  can  be 
possessed.  If  we  can  send  them  all  to  others,  ami  fail  to  do  so,  we 
are  greatly  to  be  blamed.  But  if  it  is  impossible  to  send  them  all; 
it  is  doing  a  very  great  favor  to  send  a  part.  And  if  that  part  con- 
tains, in  "words  which  the  Holy  Spirit  teacheth,"  the  whole  truth 
which  God  has  revealed;  then  that  is  done,  which  is  sufficient  for 
the  salvation  of  those  who  receive  this  gift. 

How  is  it,  then,  that  the  Bible  Society,  which  has  engaged  to 
perform  this  enterprise  of  love  for  the  world,  should,  while  it  is 
assaulted  by  Infidels  on  one  side,  have  to  turn  and  defend  itself 
against  the  professed  advocates  of  Christianity  on  the  other? — We 
conclude  the  Bible  Society  does  not  maintain  that  notes  and  com- 
ments are  unnecessary;  and  that  there  is  no  danger  of  men  being 
misled  and  mistaken,  without  them:  and  it  does  maintain  that  the 
scriptures  are  in  such  wise  sufficient,  that  from  them  men  may 
learn  all  necessary  truth,  and  under  the  gracious  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  attain  unto  eternal  life  throuj^h  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
May  God  forever  protect  and  bless  the  Bible  Society  ! 

II.  Whether  the  Bible  Society  holds  that  the  church,  ministry,  and 
sacraments  are  unnecessary:  and  thus  sins  against  the  plain  will  of 
God. 

Bishop  R.  repeatedly  brings  this  charge  against  the  friends  of  the 
Bible  cause.  We  must  examine  his  proofs,  and  with  this,  consider 
his  notions  respecting  the  church,  ministry  and  sacraments. 

On  page  78,  (the  third  paragraph  of  the  long  quotation  before 
made  by  us)  the  bishop  affirms  that  the  Bible  Society  principle 
"  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  the  sacraments  are  not  necessary 
to  give  effect  to  the  word  of  God."  In  the  next  paragraph,  (page 
79,)  he  affirms  that  "no  christian  can  comprehend  any  saving  bene- 
fit from  the  mere  letter  of  scripture,  without  the  sacraments:"  and 
again,  that  they  are  "  accompaniments  essential  to  the  saving  ef- 
fect" of  the  word  of  God.  On  page  88,  we  have  the  following 
%vords. 

"  For  the  e^cJeK^  communication  of  spiritual  instruction  to  mankind,  God 
sees  fit,  say  you,  among  several  ways  in  which  it  might  be  done,  to  select 
human  instrumentality,  in  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  administration 
of  the  sacraments.  Now,  sir,  does  the  Bible  Society  principle,  or  the  Bible 
Society  as  a  body,  pay  the  least  regard  to  this  example  ?  On  the  contrary, 
by  expressly  excluding  them,  "  no  notes  or  comments"  the  Bible  alone — 
does  it  not  practically  reject  them  as  necessary,  and  so  far  "nullify"  them? 
And  am  I  not  justified  for  the  opinion  expressed  in  the  Sermon,  p.  8,  that 
"  the  Bible  itself  was  overlooked,  in  the  clear  directions  which  may  be  drawn 
from  it,  as  to  the  only  saf";  and  eflfectual  manner  of  disseminating  its  savinp; 
knowledge," 


146  Xeview  of  Bishop  Mavensernft^s  yindication  and  Defence. 

We  are  called  on  here  to  consider  two  questions, 

1.  Whether  the  Bible  Society  can  be  justly  charged  with  the 
error  of  separating  the  Scriptures  from  the  church,  ministry  and 
sacraments  ? 

2.  Whether  the  sacraments  are  "essential  to  the  sating  effect  of 
the  Word  of  God." 

We  request  our  readers  to  keep  their  eyes  on  the  extracts  which 
we  have  given  from  the  bishop's  book  ;  and  now  let  them  turn  to 
the  third  paragraph  pa.  88,  just  noticed.  We  are  so  much  afraid 
of  not  knowing  exactly  what  bishop  R.  means,  that  we  are  quite  shy 
of  undertaking  to  abridge  his  language.  We  have  found  out  that  he 
never,  in  any  case,  means  what  an  antagonist  has  proved  to  be  a  mis- 
take as  to  fact,  or  an  error  as  to  reasoning — But  what  he  does  mean 
it  is  often  very  difficult  for  us  to  tell. 

In  the  paragraph  just  preceding  the  one  referred  to,  the  bishop 
bad  said  that  the  exclusion  of  notes  and  comments,  was  the  sole 
reason  why  he  raised  his  voice  against  the  Bible  Society.  And  if 
his  demonstration  is  good,  the  reason  was  quite  sufficient ;  for  the 
principle,  he  says,  is  "demonstrably  subversive  of  all  revealed  re- 
ligion." Then  follows  the  paragraph  which  now  claims  attention. 
In  it  we  have  an  additional  reason  to  the  sole  reason:  and  it  is  one 
of  tremendous  import.  The  Bible  Society  operates  more  exten- 
sively and  more  certainly  against  the  interests  of  revealed  religion, 
than  by  the  exclusion  of  helps  to  understand  the  true  meaning  of 
scripture.  That  operated  to  the  subversion  of  all  revealed  religion; 
but  this  is  more  extensive  still :  that  was  demonstrably  true  ;  this 
is  more  certain  than  demonstration.  Well,  what  is  it?  ''Why  the 
Bible  Society  authorizes  the  conclusion  that  the  sacraments  are  not 
necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  Word  of  God."  But  the  Bible  So- 
ciety has  never  said  a  single  syllable  about  the  sacraments. — Nay, 
but  not  so  fast — "All  comments  are  excluded.  Preaching  and  the 
sacraments  are,  in  the  truest  sense  of  the  word,  comments  on  the 
scriptures,  therefore,  the  Bible  Society  principle  excludes  the  sa- 
craments."— And  therefore,  again,  the  Bible  Society  principle 
reaches  further  than  the  subversion  of  all  revealed  religion,  and 
this  is  more  certain  than  demonstration  !  But  perhaps  the  words 
more  certainly,  refer  not  to  the  demonstration  of  the  evil,  but  to  the 
effect  of  the  principle:  if  so,  then  we  have  this  writer  affirming 
that  the  exclusion  of  the  sacraments,  "which  are  in  the  truest  sense 
of  the  word  comments  on  the  scripture"  must  be  much  more  ex- 
tensively and  certainly  injurious,  than  the  exclusion  of  notes  and 
comments!  The  preacher  tells  us  that  this  consequence  from  the 
Bible  Society  principle  was  stated  and  urged  in  his  sermon;  but 
that  not  even  a  plausible  answer  has  yet  been  given  to  this  part  of 
his  argument.  Perhaps  the  reason  is  that  nobody  has  ever  yet  fully 
comprehended  the  meaning  of  the  right  reverend  prelate.  We 
however,  will  try  our  hand,  under  peril  of  an  additional  failure. 

But  first  we  must  thank  the  bishop  for  the  discovery,  new  indeed 
to  us,  that  the  sacraments  are  comments  on  the  scripture.  A  com- 
ment is,  according  to  common  usage,  an  explanation,  or  exposition 
of  that  which  is  not  perfectly  understood,  or  duly  appreciated.  But 
a  sacrament  is  a  sign,    Now  when  an  action  or  thing  is  employed 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroffs  Vindication  and  Defence*  147 

to  express  ideas,  there  must  be  an  agreement,  or  a  mutual  under- 
standing between  the  parties  communicating,  as  to  the  ideas  intend- 
ed to  be  conveyed  by  the  sign.  Otherwise  it  may  be  repeated 
thousands  of  times,  without  being  understood  at  all.  Now  it  is  from 
scripture  alone  that  we  learn  what  meaning  to  attach  to  that  sign  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith,  denominated  a  sacrament.  There  we 
look  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  truths  God  intended  should 
be  represented  by  the  sacraments.  It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  attach 
any  other  meaning  to  them,  than  that  fixed  on  by  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  when  he  instituted  them.  It  is  then  much  more  proper  to 
say  that  the  scripture  is  a  comment  on  the  sacraments,  than  that  the 
sacraments  are  a  comment  on  scripture.  Precisely  the  reverse  of 
the  bishop's  saying  is  true,  'no  christian  can  comprehend  any  sav- 
ing benefit  from  the  mere  letter  of  scripture  without  the  sacra- 
ments."— He  ought  to  have  said  "no  christian  can  comprehend  any 
saving  benefit  from  the  sacraments,  without  that  explanation  of  them 
which  is  given  by  scripture. 

But  as  the  sacraments  are  not  comments  on  scripture,  the  Bible 
Society  principle,  which  only  excludes  notes  and  comments,  does  not 
exclude  the  sacraments. 

Farther:  in  all  that  bishop  R.  has  said  on  this  subject,  he  appears 
to  us  entirely  to  have  mistaken  the  true  character  of  the  Bible  So- 
ciety. We  must  therefore  repeat  that  it  is  not  a  church.  It  there- 
fore, as  a  body,  has  nothing  whatsoever  to  do  with  the  sacraments. 
It  is  a  company,  somewhat  of  a  commercial  character,  formed  not 
for  profit,  but  for  benevolence.  It  claims  as  an  association  no  right 
or  power,  which  is  not  possessed  by  every  individual  member.  We 
have  a  right  to  purchase  and  distribute  gratuitously,  or  at  prime 
cost,  as  many  Bibles  as  we  can.  Our  neighbors  have  a  right  to  do 
so  too.  Or  we  may  unite  our  charities  and  do  the  same  thing.  On 
the  very  same  principle,  all  in  a  county,  a  state,  or  kingdom,  may 
adopt  the  same  measure.  What  have  we,  in  this  capacity,  to  do 
with  the  adiuinistration  of  the  sacraments?  For  all  that  we  can  see, 
bishop  R.'s  argument  would  be  just  as  strongly  against  the  publica- 
tion and  sale  of  the  Bible  without  note  or  comment,  by  a  company 
of  Booksellers.  The  only  difference  is,  that  booksellers  work  for 
money;  but  the  Bible  Society  works  gratuitously: — the  booksellers 
aim  at  profit;  the  Bible  Society  at  "making  men  wise  unto  salva- 
tion." Why  does  not  bishop  11.  pre:ich  sermons,  and  write  big- 
pamphlets  to  show  that  booksellers  ought  to  be  discountenanced  iu 
selling  the  Bible  alone  to  any  but  those  who  have  the  church,  min- 
istry, and  sacraments?  This  Achillean  argument  against  the  Bible 
Society,  as  the  bishop  seems  to  think  it,  is  utterly  without  force  or 
skill.  It  is  founded  on  a  total  misapprehension  of  the  true  charac- 
ter of  the  institution.  The  bishop's  reasoning  otien  reminds  us  of 
an  anecdote  of  Diogenes,  and  a  young  man.  1  he  philosopher,  on 
seeing  a  youth  shooting  very  unskilfully  with  a  bow,  went  and  placed 
himself  close  by  the  target.  To  those  who  asked  why  he  did  this, 
he  replied,  "I  am  afraid  that  if  I  sit  any  where  else,  that  man  will 
shoot  me.'"' — While  we  keep  close  to  the  Bible  Society,  we  do  not 
♦hink  that  the  bishop  will  ever  hit  us. 
10 


148  Jtevieiv  of  Bhhop  Ravenscroffs  Vindicaimi  and  Defence. 

But  altlioiigh  this  charitable  company  said  nothing,  as  it  was  their 
business  to  say  nothing  about  tlie  church,  ministry,  and  sacra- 
ments; yet  in  considering  the  good  which  was  Hkely  to  result  from 
their  benevolent  exertions,  they  might  very  well  expect,  that  the 
distribution  and  general  perusal  of  the  Bible,  would  excite  an  ear- 
nest desire  to  understand  its  ditjirult  parts,  and  lead  the  reader  to 
seek  for  notes  and  comments — that,  observing  what  is  said  in  the 
sacred  volume  respecting  tfie  christian  ministry  and  the  privileges 
of  the  church,  he  would  endeavor  to  procure  for  himself  this  bles- 
sing; and  that  learning  from  the  Bible  the  nature  of  the  sacraments, 
and  the  benefits  derived  through  them,  he  ivould  wish  to  partake  of 
those  holy  ordinances. — Now  what  is  the  fant?  Since  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Bible  Society,  commentaries  on  the  scriptures  have  been 
multiplied  and  extended  beyond  all  former  example.  Old  works 
have  gone  through  new  editions,  and  new  works  of  this  kind  have 
been  circulated  to  an  extent  really  surprising.  Among  many  of  the 
former,  vfe  mention,  Henry,  Lovvtii,  Patrick,  and  Whitby;  and  of  the 
latter,  Mant  and  D'Oyley,  Clarke,  Hewlett,  and  Scott.  The  circu- 
iation  of  the  last  work  is  really  prodigious.  We  are  inclined  to 
think  that  since  the  first  publication  of  that  commentary,  more  co- 
pies of  it  have  been  sold,  than  had  been  of  all  other?  during  the  pre- 
ceding &ky  years  The  bishop  ought  to  rejoice  in  this;  for  Scott 
was  a  member  of  the  true.  Apostolic,  episcopal  church. —  Would 
that  there  were  thousands  like  him! 

Moreover;  ministers  of  the  gospel  have  been  much  more  sought 
for,  and  much  greater  efforts  to  increase  their  numbers,  have  been 
made  since  the  organization  of  the  Bible  Society,  than  before. 

And  again;  the  reports  of  all  the  churches  show  a  large  increase 
of  regular,  zealous,  and  pious  communicants. 

These  are  facts  not  to  be  questioned.  This  is  the  way  in  which 
the  Bible  Society  subverts  revealed  religion!  There  are  no  argu- 
ments like  facts.  They  demolish  bishop  R.'s  reasonings  as  Per- 
kins' new  steam-gun  is  said  to  do  a  fabric  of  pine  boards. 

But  we  are  to  inquire  in  the  next  place,  whether  the  sacra- 
ments are  "essential  to  the  saving  effect  of  the  word  of  God." 

We  are  obliged  to  consider  this  question,  because  bishop  R.  as- 
sumes the  affirmative  ;  and  argues  that  the  Bible  Society  is  useless, 
and  worse  than  useless,  because  it  does  not  send  the  sacraments 
with  the  word.  If  it  is  true,  that  the  Bible  can  produce  no  saving 
effect  without  the  sacraments;  then  indeed  the  Society  h  compara- 
fively  of  little  value.  We  say  that  bishop  R.  assu^ncs  the  affirmative, 
because  he  does  not  offer  either  argument  or  authority  in  its  sup- 
port.    But  let  us  examine  this  subject. 

The  word  of  God  has  a  saving  effect,  when  men  so  believe  it  as 
to  be  affected  by  its  truths  according  to  their  nature  ;  that  is,  when 
they  fear  the  threatenings  of  God  ;  obey  his  commands  ;  rely  on 
his  promises;  embrace  his  offered  mercy,  &c.  Cannot  the  word  of 
God  produce  this  effect,  undei  the  intluences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
without  the  Sacraments?  In  answering  this  question,  we  must 
again  advert  to  the  nature  of  the  Sacraments.  They  are  commonly 
called  by  Theologians,  in  conformity  to  language  used  by  the  Apos- 
tle Paul,  (Rom.  iv,  11.)  "signs 'and  seals  of  the  righteousness  of" 


Keview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl's  Viuukallon  and  Befencf,  149 

faith."  Now,  thoy  either  I);ivo  e(Ficncy  in  tliemselveis ;  or  because, 
they  strikingly  exhibit  the  trdth,  which  God  blesses  to  the  salvation 
of  his  people.  Ifthey  hnve  efficacy  in  themselves,  or  if  the  ele- 
ments iisetl  are  the  jncdia,  throniih  which  the  Hoiy  Spirit  directly 
conveys  his  blessings  to  the  soul,  Avithowt  respect  to  the  truth  j 
then  we  admit  the  old  popish  doctrine  of  eflicacy  ex  opere  operato 
An  infant  baptized  by  a  duly  authorized  minister  is,  ipso  facto,  re- 
generated !  A  man  who  has  received  the  bread  and  wine  of  the. 
Lord's  Supper,  is  ipso  facto,  for  the  time  being  at  least,  in  a  state 
of  salvation  !  We  do  not  charge  these  popish  absurditi^^s  on  bishop 
R,  Doubtless  he  rejects  them.  He  must  then  agree  with  us,  that 
the  eflicacy  of  the  sacraments  under  God,  arises  fVom  this,  that  they 
give  a  striking  representation  of  that  truth,  which  God  has  revealed 
for  the  salvation  of  sinners.  But  in  order  that  they  may  do  this,  we 
must  search  the  scriptures,  and  learn  the  meaning  of  the  signs  ap- 
pointed for  ttiis  purpose.  Tl>e  Apostle  Paul  appears  to  us  to  teach 
this  doctrine,  when  he  speaks  of  those  who  eat  and  drink  unwor- 
thily, because  they  do  not  discern  the  Lord's  body.  (1  Cor.  xi, 
29.)  VVithout  this  knowledge,  the  sacraments  will  be  a  mere  sense- 
less show,  incapable  of  proiilinii  us  in  the  least  conceivable  de- 
gree. A  man  uninslructed  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  might  partake  of  it  every  day  during  his  whole  life,  without 
benefit.  Hence  it  appears  that  here,  as  in  the  former  case,  bishop 
R.  has  laid  down  his  position  wrong  end  foretuost.  It  is  undeniably 
true,  that  the  knowledge  derived  from  the  word  of  God,  is  indispen- 
sably necessary  to  give  to  the  sacraments  their  saving  elTect.  We 
know,  indeed,  and  do  most  freely  admit,  that  when  the  people  are 
well  instructed,  and  do  sincerely  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  the 
signs  appointed  by  God,  carry  the  truth  with  great  power  to  the 
heart.  But  can  they  do  this,  when  men  are  unconverted  and  un- 
believing ? 

Farther  :  let  us  suppose,  what  has  often  happened,  and  may 
happen  again,  unless  a  miracle  should  prevent  it,  that  one,  who  has 
no  opportunity  of  receiving  the  sacraments  but  yet  possesses  the 
scriptures,  from  diligent  study  oi"  the  word  of  God,  receives  the 
same  truths  which  are  represented  by  the  sacraments,  and  relies 
for  instance  on  the  Savioui  just  as  he  does,  who  sees  the  atonement 
exhibited  by  the  L  )rd's  Supper,  does  not  that  man  feel  the  saving 
effect  of  divine  truth  ?  Why  u>ay  he  not  ?  The  very  same  truth 
is  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God,  which  is  exhibited  by  the  sacra- 
ments. Indeed  the  only  difierence  is,  that  he  who  has  both  the 
word  and  the  sacraments,  has  greater  advantages  than  he  who  has 
only  the  word.  But  the  advantage  does  not  lie  in  this,  that  the 
former  has  more  truth  than  the  latter;  he  only  has  more  means  of 
giving  efficacy  to  the  truth. 

There  is  another  idea  on  this  subject  entertained  by  the  bishop, 
which  we  are  called  on  to  notice.  He  maintains  that  the  reception 
of  the  sacraments,  from  n  duly  authorized  minister,  (^nnd  we  know 
his  meaning  here)  is  necessary  to  give  to  man,  the  assurance  of  sal- 
vation. And  in  his  own  peculiar  style  he  says  (pa.  3;J)  "nor  is  the 
modern  doctrine  of  internal'^  consciousness,  and  assumed  assurance 

•  We  must  be  permitted  to  hope  that  bishop  R's  authority  will 
be  extended  by  none  to  the  English  language.    What  distinction  *l»e*  Jife 


I5l)  Itevinv  of  Bishop  IlavenscroJC s  Vindication  and  Befence. 

<that  sectarian  opiate  cf  deluded  sonis)  any  substitute  for  those  ex- 
urnal  ordina7ices,  which  designate  the  covenant  of  mercy  to  re- 
deemed man." — We  think  this  a  grievous  error — wc  fear  that  it  i& 
widely  prevalent ;  we  are  sure  that  it  is  deeply  injurious.  Presby- 
terians never  think  of  substituting  internal  feelings  for  external  ob- 
servances ;  but,  if  they  deserve  the  name,  they  are  by  far  too  well 
instructed  to  say  or  believe,  that  the  sacraments  give  to  him  who 
receives  them,  the  assurance  that  he  will  be  saved.  They  do  no 
such  thing.  They  exhibit,  by  objects  of  sense,  the  very  same 
truth  (neither  more  nor  less)  which  is  taught  in  the  word  of  God 
namely,  that  the  truly  penitent  and  believing  sinner  shall  be  saved. 
But  how  can  one  know  that  he  repents  and  believes,  but  by  con- 
sciousness ?  This  is  the  otdy  way  by  which  we  can  possibly  learn 
what  are  our  mental  exercises.  We  determine  whelher  they  are 
genume  or  not,  by  comparing  tiiem  and  the  conduct  lo  which  they 
lead  with  the  word  of  God.  The  sacraments,  as  seai;^  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,  afford  assurance  of  salvation,  only  so  far  as  we 
have  evidence  from  the  sources  just  indicated  that  we  are  chris- 
tians. And  they  give  this  assurance  simply  because  we  know  from 
scripture  that  God  has  appointed  them  as  his  seals.  To  say  then 
that  a  priest  gives  assurance  of  salvation  by  administering  the  sa- 
craments ;  or  that  the  sacraments  assure  a  man  that  he  is  in  cove- 
nant with  God,  and  so  in  a  stale  of  salvation,  is  incorrect,  is  danger- 
ous— It  is  one  of  those  popish  tendencies  in  bishop  K's  doctrine,  of 
•jvhich  he  seems  not  to  be  aware. 

The  whole  case  brought  into  this  division  of  the  subject  may  be 
briefly  stated  thus — There  are  millions  and  mdlions  m  the  world, 
who  have  neither  the  word  nor  the  sacraments.  (Christians  have 
their  missionaries  to  preach  the  gospel  in  heathen  and  destitute 
lands.  But  this  work  goes  on  slowly.  Of  necessity,  millions  and 
millions  must  die,  before  the  church  can  send  the  living  preacher 
into  all  the  world.  But  the  Bible  contains  all  the  religious  truth, 
which  the  missionary  ever  can  carry  to  the  ignorant — that  truth 
may  be  read,  and  understood,  and  have  saving  edicacy,  and  give  as- 
surance of  salvation,  even  without  a  preacher.  Protestants  believ- 
ing this,  and  believing  too,  that  the  Bible  is  an  admirable  prepara- 
tive for  the  way  of  the  missionary,  have,  without  interfering  with 
any  church  matters,  formed  a  company  lui  sending  the  word  of 
God  in  its  purity  to  all  the  world. — And  this  is  the  plan,  which  a 
Protestant  bishop  has  persuaded  himself  is  contrary  to  the  will  of 
God,  and  subversive  of  all  revealed  religion.  Had  not  bishop  R. 
and  others  like  him  uttered  this  with  theii  own  mouths  ;  and  given 
it  under  their  own  hands,  in  writing,  ind  in  print,  the  world  would 
have  cried  out,  on  hearing  it,  with  an  incredulous  stare,  '"is  it  pos- 
sible?" 

On  pages,  79,  80,  bishop  R.  gives  an  extract  from  an  address  to 
the  American  churches,  by  two  of  our  missionaries  in  Bombay,  as 
testimony  corroborative  of  his  rf^asoniiig.  iVJaking  a  hlile  abate- 
ment for  the  strong  language  employed  by  these  excellent  men,  as 

mean  to  make  by  the  word  internal,  as  applied  to  consciousness  ?  Is  there 
an  external  consciousness ,''  and  what  is  the  doctrine  of  ammed  osswr- 


Jte'ciew  of  Bishop  Kavenscroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 


15  i 


friends  of  the  Bible  cause,  we  have  not  the  shadow  of  an  objection 
to  the  sentiments  contained  in  this  address.  We  all  admit  the  ne- 
cessity of  missionaries.  No  people  in  the  world  do  so  much  for 
the  cause  of  missions,  as  the  friends  of  the  Bible  Society.  Bishop 
R.  may  consult  the  records  of  the  Church  Alissianary  Society,  of  the 
London  Missionary  Society,  of  the  Scotch  Missionary  Society,  in  Eu- 
rope. He  may  then  turn  to  all  ths^  imi)ortaiit  Societies  of  this  kind 
in  America;  and  he  will  tind  as  suppoit(>rs  of  these  Institutions,  the 
names  of  the  very  men.  who  have  been  the  life  and  soul  of  the  Bi- 
ble cause.  And  it  is  their  ardorit  desire  that  chri  'i ms  would  not  do 
less  for  the  distribution  of  the  Bible,  but  a  hundred  fold  more  for  the 
sendnifj  out  of  missionaries.  Would  bishop  R.  assist  in  supporting 
the  American  Missionaries  at  Bombay?  We  are  particularly  desi- 
rous to  l)e  informed  on  this  subject. 

As  bishop  R.  has  referred  to  the  condition  of  the  eastern  world, 
we  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  he  has  read  the  life  of  Henry 
Martyn;  and  made  himself  acquainted  with  the  history  of  his  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  into  the  Persian  language.  There  is 
much  reason  to  believe  that  this  work  is  exerting  a  great  influence 
in  Persia;  and  that  the  way  is  being  prepared  by  it  for  the  suc- 
cessful operations  of  Missionaries  in  that  nation  oi  Mahomedans. 

And  here,  having  mentioned  the  name  of  Henry  Martyn,  we  can- 
not deny  ourselves  the  pleasure  of  expressing  our  admiration  of 
his  character.  He  was  indeed  a  lovely  christian.  With  talents  of 
high  order,  and  great  attainments  for  his  age,  he  had  all  the  sim- 
plicity of  a  child,  with  the  zeal  and  courage  of  an  Apostle.  W^ith 
sufficient  attachment  to  the  forms  and  order  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  he  acknowledged  brotherhood  with  all  who  loved  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Short  but  brdliant  was  his  career.  Too  soon,  ac- 
cording to  the  feelings  of  his  friends  and  of  the  church,  did  he  be- 
come ripe  for  Heaven.  They  acknowledged,  indeed,  God's  right 
to  take  him;  but  they  universally  mourned  his  loss.  His  funeral 
obsequies  were  celebrated  by  the  whole  Protestant  world.  We 
have  no  wish  for  the  Episcopal  church,  tlian  that  all  her  presbyters 
may  be  like  Henry  Martyn.  And  we  will  add,  all  her  bishops  like 
bishop  Porteus,  the  first  great  friend  of  the  Bible  cause.  Could 
this  wish  be  gratified,  we  should  in  the  next  place  pray,  that  they 
might  be  multiplied  an  hundred  fold. 

111.  Bishop  R.  maintains,  that  the  Bible  Society  encourages  Here- 
sy and  Schism  by  declariiig,  in  effect,  that  all  forms  of  religious  faith 
are  equally  safe;  and  maintaining  that  all  are  equally  entitled  to  the 
Tvitness  of  the  spirit. 

This  objection  appears  to  be  the  favorite  of  our  author;  for  he  re- 
curs to  it  again  and  ^ig  lin.  and  after  his  reasoning  has  spent  its  bolt, 
he  kindles  about  it  the  fiie  of  passion.  But  we  believe  that  nobody 
burns  but  himself 

Our  readers  will  have  to  turn  again  to  the  long  extract,  made 
when  we  began  this  disru^sion,  and  read  as  follows,  "But  the  Bible 
Society,  as  a  body,  are  aware  of  the  fact  "  &c.  Again,  pp.  80,  81, 
in  accounting  for  the  great  popularity  of  the  Bible  Society,  he  as-, 
cribes  it  to  the  "sanction  and  support  which  this  'no  comment' 
principle  gives  to  the  two  very  prevalent  delusions  of  the  latter 


152  liecietu  of  Bishop  RarensGroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence. 

Hay,  the  one,  that  every  man  may  safely  form  his  own  system  ot 
faith  and  order  in  religion;  the  other,  that  all  who  profess  and  call 
themselves  christians,  no  matter  how  separated  and  divided  in  faith, 
origin  and  order,  are  nevertlieletis  members  of  the  one  spouse*  and 
body  of  Christ,  and  ought  to  be  acknowledged  as  such." 

"Only  acknowledge  ns  as  branches  of  Clirist's  Church,  upon  every  thing 
else  let  us  "agree  lo  differ."  But  sir,  the  religion  of  the  'iiospel  is  a  posi- 
tive institution,  wliich  Bible  Societies,  and  sectarian  professions  of  failh, 
cannot  coiilrol,  and  mould,  sind  model  to  suit  their  particular  views,  but  by 
which  they  ought  to  and  must  be  re.^^ulated.  And  a  principle  in  religion,  or 
connected  with  religion  :is  revealed,  which  cannot  bear  being  carried  out  to 
its  "  legitimate"  consequences  and  results,  is  not  of  God.  The  wisdom  of 
God  sends  us  nothing  in  his  word,  or  connected  witii  his  religion,  of  this  ab- 
stract unmanageable  character;  beautiful  in  theor\',  impossible  or  injurious 
in  practice.  And  the  very  fact,  that  in  favor  of  tiiis  very  principle,  every 
shade  of  sectarian  belief,  every  grade  of  speculative  and  actual  unbelief, 
can,  and  does  unite,  is  conclusive  proof,  that  the  princi[)le  is  unsound,  vi- 
cious, and  ultimately  subversive  of  all  reve;i!ed  religion.  Each  sees  in  it 
something  favorable  to  its  particular  views,  noi  e  perceive  in  it  any  thing  in- 
imical to  its  distinctive  tenets,  all  find  in  it  something  which  may  be  turned 
to  account,  in  the  rivalry  ft-r  accesbion  lo  particular  denominations  in  a  divi- 
ded christian  world  ;  while  in  their  aggregated  capacitj  of  a  "  no  comment" 
Bible  Society,  they  flatter  and  greet  eacii  other  w  ith  tiie  name  ot  Christians. 
Deistical  christians.  Unitarian  christians,  Univcrsalist  christians,  Quaker 
christians,  Indepeniieiit  christians.  Congregational  cliristians,  Pit-sbUerian 
christians,  Methodist  christians,  Baptist  ciinstians,  Lutheran  cnristians,  names 
without  number  christians,  Nothingarian  chrisiiaiis,  and  alas,  alas!  some 
Kpiscopalian  christians,  all  mcft  here  upon  the  same-  level,  all  unite  to  send 
the  naked  scriptures  into  the  world ;  al!  being  aware,  that  in  the  confusion 
of  mind,  as  to  its  real  and  single  truth,  consequent  on  existing  divisions  as 
to  what  is  truth,  each  may  g-ive  that  gloss  to  the  discoveries  and  doctrines  of 
the  Bible,  which  shall  suit  its  own  views." — pp.  80,  81. 

We  shall  certainly  have  to  protest  against  the  "no  comment  prin- 
ciple," as  applied  to  bishop  Ravenscroft's  uritings.  We  have  ne- 
ver, in  all  our  liUle  reading,  met  with  a  book  n  hich  has  greater 
need  of  "explanations,  illi!slr;ilions,  expositions,  and  enforcements"' 
of  its  "sense,"  than  this  same  work,  which  we  are  now  reviewing. 
The  last  sentence  of  this  extract  calls  loudly  for  the  assistance  of 
some  modern  Vincentius  Lirinensis.     But  rse  must  let  it  pass. 

On  page  83,  the  bishop  admits,  that  "all  profess  (o  derive  their 
religion  from  the  scripture;  and  (he  proceeds)  1  verily  believe  they 
think  they  do  so."  He  considers  it  "a  di'bt  due  to  real  charity,  to 
consider  all  denominations  as  acting  with  integrity  in  (his  enatter, 
that  they  do  verily  believe,  not  only  that  they  have  (he  warrant  of 
scripture,  but  that  they  have  it  in  such  wise  as  to  be  safer,  as  con- 
cerns their  souls,  under  this  construction  of  srri|)ture,  than  thet'^ 
could  be  under  any  other  construction  of  it."  "And  (he  adds  em- 
phatically) your  chariiy  inay  yo  fardier  if  it  crm." — Alas!  we  can 
make  no  comj)arison  betwf^en  onr  charity  and  (hat  of  the  bishop. 
But  we  hold  it  to  be  a  debt  due  to  (ruth  to  adtnit  (hat  bishop  R.  does 
verily  believe  that  the  ministrations  of  men  can  give  "assurance  to 
the  word"  of  God.     If  then,  we  might  also  be  indulged  in  the  folly 

*  Should  there  be  found  any  to  maintain  this  monstrous  opinion,  we  are 
pretty  certain  that  thi  y  would  not  allow  bishop  H.  to  express  it  for  them — 
members  of  the  one  spouse  !  We  do  not  believe  that  amj  friend  of  the  .Bible- 
Stjciety  would  use  such  language  a§  this. 


'Review  of  Bishop  Ravensereft^s  Vindicaiien  and  Dtfeme.  153 

of  boasting,  we  would  say,  th:it  our  love  of  truth  seems  to  be  about 
even  with  the  bishop's  charity.  But  he  proceeds,  and  sa}9,  very 
•justly,  that  this  sincerity  does  not  prove  that  these  denominations 
are  right.  Nor  does  his  sincerity  prove  that  he  is  right.  He,  how- 
ever, follows  up  these  remarks,  in  such  terms  as  these,  and  we  give 
them  as  a  precious  specimen  of  the  style  and  spirit  of  our  diocesan. 

"The  darkest  and  most  preposterous  fanatic  that  ever  lived,  equally  with 
the  more  dangerous   heresiarch,  and  orthodox  christian — John   Bockholdt, 
and  George  Fox— John  Calvin,  and  John   Wesley— Anna   Lee,  and  Joanna 
Southcote — Archbishop  Cran'tier,  and  Bishop  Kidle>,  all  [ji-ofessed  to  derive 
their  religion  from  tiie  Bible,  all  claimed  the  scriptures  as  with  them.     Yet 
forever  and  forever,  must  it  not  hold  good— that  whf-tiier  right  or  wrong, 
true  or  false,  religion  or  no  religion,  must  depend  on  scripture,  well  or  ill 
interpreted,  understood  and  applied  ?     These  all  could  net  be  right,  some 
must  be  radically  wrong.     Yet,  according  to  your  argument,  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  "  no  comment''  Bible  Society— the  very  delusion  which  aban- 
dons the  scriptures  to  any  and  every  son   of  interpretation,  "is  ground 
where  all  can  meet,"  yes  and  be  acknowledged  too,   as  faithful  christians. 
For,  if  this  was  not  a  consequence,  practically,  of  the  principle,  your  num» 
bers  would  be  woefully  thinned — But  so  it  is.     In  these  Societies,  the  Deist 
and  the  Trinitarian,  the  Calvinist  and  the  Arminian,  the  deniers  of  the  divi- 
nity of  Christ  and  its  defenders,  the  asserters  of  universal  salvation  and  the 
teachers  of  eternal  punishment,  the  Quaker  and  the  Churchman,  the  Pres- 
byterian and  the  Episcopalian,  the  Baptist  and  the  Pedo-Baptist,  the  true 
believer  and  the  Infidel  of  every  shade,  can  find  "  one  calm  and  peaceful 
place"  wherein  "to  indulge  the  delightful  emotions  of  uvbounded  benevO' 
(ence,  and  unmingled  confidence.^'     And  is  such  wild  and  visionary  declama- 
tion, tricked  out  in  the  tinsel  of  a  spurious  charity — ventured  upon  the  pub- 
lic intelligence,  by  a  Divine  and  a  Theologian  of  the  nineteenth  century  ? 
Are  we  from  this  to  understand,  that  there  is  unmingled  confidence  betwixt 
the  Presbyterians  and  the  Unitarians?     Or  is  there  some  talit-manic  charm 
in  this  Bible  Society  principle,  which  fosters  "  unboundi^d  benevolence," 
while  it  interdicts  the  orderly  prelude  of  joint  prayer  to  God,  for  his  bless- 
ing on  dieir  joint  work  of  enlightened  charity  ?     Or,  is  the  Jesuitical  maxim, 
that  the  end  justifies  the  means,  once  more  in  operation  ?" — pp.  83,  84. 

Should  the  bishop  publish  another  book  on  (iii'*  subject,  we  shall 
expect  to  hear  of  its  having  been  made  "demonstrably  certain" 
that  the  Bible  Society  is  a  new  revelation  of  the  man  of  sin;  or 
possibly  thai  it  is  the  great  beast  of  the  Apocalypse,  vvith  seven 
heads  and  ten  horns. 

But  what  is  more  amusing  than  this  even,  is  the  delightful  speci- 
men of  his  charity.,  (of  which  the  bishop  spoke  in  rather  boastful 
terms,)  given  in  the  sentence,  "  Are  we  from, this  to  understand, 
that  there  is  unmingled  confidence  between  the  Piesbyterians  and 
Unitarians?"*  It  m  ly  gratify  the  kindtiess  of  our  prelate  to  learn 
that  this  stroke  diverted  us  excessively. 

*  A  poor  papist  once  applied  to  his  Priest,  with  an  offer  of  money  and  a 
request  that  he  would  curse  his  enemy  for  him.  The  priest  replied  that  he 
ought  not  to  curse,  but  pray  for  his  enemies.  "  What  shall  /gain  by  that  ?" 
"Why,  the  scripture  says  that  in  so  doing  thou  shah  heap  coals  of  fire  on  his 
head.  "Shall  I  do.so  ?  Then  I  -will  pray  for  him  enouorh.''—On  coming  to 
this  resolution,  he  immediately  kneeled  down  in  the  church,  and  began  to 
pray  very  earnestly ;  and  continued  Ins  posture  and  his  supplications,  until  the 
Priest  had  got  through  his  service,  and  wished  to  retire.  Finding  that  the 
man  continued  at  prayer,  the  Priest  became  impatient,  and  interrupted  him, 
with — Come,  you  have  prayed  enough  for  this  time — "  O  !"  rejoined  the 
other,  "I  wish  to  burn  him  to  a  cinder,  before  I  am  done  with  him." 


134  Iteview  of  Bishop  Ravettscrofi*s  Vindication  and  Defence, 

After  a  good  deal  more  on  this  general  subject,  which  we  ha?e  no 
room  to  notice,  on  page  86,  the  bishop  cl»^nct>es  his  arguments  and 
his  rlietoric  with,  what  it  is  due  to  truth  or  charity  to  admit  that  he 
verily  believed  was  a  regular  syllogism. 

"Many  opposite  systems  of  religions  profession  are  derived  from  the  Bible, 
In  which  "the  pious  of  every  name  have  felt  the  ponver  of  divine  truth,  and 
know  the  preciousness  of  the  Bible,"  and  are  saved: 

But  no  saving  knowledge  can  be  drawn  from  the  scriptures,  but  by  the 
Holy  Ghost : 

Therefore,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  equally  given  to  opposite 
interpretations  of  scripture. 

And  this,  I  hope,  will  satisfy  your  desire  for  a  regular  syllogism,  p.  253 — 
will  teach  you  to  look  to  the  consistency  aid  agreement  of  the  principles 
you  advocate,  with  the  reasonings  you  resort  to — will  lead  you  to  be  sorry 
for  your  so  frequent  and  needless  attacks  on  that  which,  if  you  have  eittier 
piety  or  taste,  you  must  love,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer."-  p.  86. 

There  are  many  other  passages  in  this  part  of  the  bishop's  book 
of  similar  import;  we  have  no  room  to  quote  them;  nor  can  it  be 
necessary  that  we  should  do  so.  It  is  clear  enough  that  the  defen- 
der of  the  Bible  Society  against  bishop  R.'s  attack,  is  called  to  con- 
sider these  questions.     Does  that  body  hold, 

1.  That  all  systems  of  religious  faith  which  men  have  pretended 
to  derive  from  the  Bible,  are  equally   "safe  for  salvation  ?" 

2.  That  all  are  equally  entitled  to  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

3.  And  as  a  result  of  all  this,  does  it  encourage  schism,  heresy, 
division  and  separation  without  end  ? 

1.  It  is  surprising,  when  a  man  is  determined  on  it,  how  high  a 
building  he  can  erect  on  a  single  point.  The  misery  of  the  case  is, 
that  the  materials  being  all  very  light,  the  first  wind  overturns  the 
whole  superstructure,  et  ibi  omnis  labor  effusus.  The  Bible  Society 
distributes  the  Bible  "without  note  or  comment" — therefore, — • 
what?  We  should  be  perfectly  willing  to  rest  this  whole  matter, 
on  the  answer  that  any  person  ot  plain  common  sense  would  give  to 
this  question.  Nay,  we  would  venture  to  risk  our  cause  on  the  an- 
swer of  an  intelligent  child  of  twelve  years. — We  would  say,  "here 
my  dear  boy,  here  is  a  book  that  we  believe  will  do  you  good,  if 
you  will  take  and  read  it — It  is  for  this  purpose  we  give  il — Take 
this  Bible  then — it  is  just  the  Bible  and  nothing  else,  the  pure  word 
of  God" — And  on  his  bowing  and  giving  in  turn  his  "■thank  ye,"  we 
would  say,  "Now,  my  little  fellow,  what  do  you  think  is  the  reason 
we  give  you  this  book,  without  any  explanation  to  help  you  to  un- 
derstand it?"— Our  life  upon  it,  his  answer  would  imply  this — "Be- 
cause you  think  the  Book  plain  enough  for  me  to  read  and  under- 
stand." What,  the  whole?  "No,  not  the  whole  of  this  large  book; 
but  a  great  deal  nf  it:  enough  to  make  me  a  good  man."  And  should 
we  ask  him,  "Do  you  think  that  we  give  you  just  this  book,  because 
we  suppose  that  it  makes  no  odds  what  opinions  you  derive  from 
it?" — He  would  surely  answer,  ••Certainly  not — if  you  intend  to  do 
me  good  by  your  gift."  The  question  would  excite  surprise  in  any 
unsophisticated  mind. 

But  bishop  R.  seems  to  think,  that  the  union  of  many  individuals 
belonging  to  different  denominations,  in  the  Bible  Society,  impresses 
on  it  that  character  which  he  reprobate?.     But  his  demonstrfitjon^ 


Meview  of  Bishop  Rarenscroft's  Plndicaiion  and  Defence.  155 

have  not  yet  convinced  us;  we  wonder  that  tliey  have  convinced 
himself.  Let  ws  admit  that  the  members  of  the  Bible  Society  have 
that  party-feeling,  the  absence  of  wfiich  in  a  christian  seems  to  go 
so  far  beyond  the  bishop's  conception;  that  they  unite  for  the  pur- 
pose of  engaging  in  a  "disgrareful  scramble  lor  proselytes."  These 
indeed  are  strange  suppositions;  but  let  us  make  them — and  what 
then?  Why,  the  Episcopalian  believes  that  the  Bible  is  on  his  side 
• — so  of  the  Presbyterian — so  of  the  iVlethorlist — so  of  the  Baptist— 
and  so  of  all  the  rest.  Each  one  unites  then,  on  the  belief,  that  the 
distribution  of  the  Bible  »vill  promote  his  own  cause.  How,  then 
can  his  union  with  the  others  ije  construed  into  a  declaration,  that 
it  is  no  matter  what  opinions  a  man  derives  from  the  Bible?  We 
should  think  it  sounder  logic  to  conclude,  t!iat  the  diilerent  denom- 
inations are  so  sure  that  the  Bible  favoi  s  their  opinions,  that  others 
also  would  derive  the  same  opinions  fiom  that  source  of  religious 
instruction. 

All  intelligent  christians  believe  that  learning  and  science  are  ex- 
cellent handmaids  to  religion.  We,  as  Presl>yterians,  believe  still 
farther,  that  they  f  iv^or  our  denomination.  Episcopalians  and  others 
entertain  the  same  opinion,  in  relition  to  their  influence  in  favor  of 
their  persuasion.  Unbelievers  m.iintain,  that  learning  and  science 
are  enemies  lo  wha(  tiiey  misname,  superstition.  These  different 
descriptions  of  persons  all  wish  to  promote  the  same  object,  but 
with  different  views.  Now  there  is  in  the  state  of  N.  Carolina,  a 
flourishing  literary  institution,  the  common  property  of  the  citizens 
of  that  state,  and  supported  by  them  on  different  principles;  all, 
however,  admitting  the  value  of  learning.  Will  bishop  R.  and  his 
followers  in  North  Carolina,  adopt  the  spirit  of  his  objection  against 
the  Bible  Society,  and  denounce  and  endeavor  to  pull  down  the 
University?  Will  they  say,  "This  institution  is  supported  by  Infi- 
dels, and  Baptists,  and  Methodists,  and  Presbyterians,  and  Nothing- 
arians, and  alas  !  alas,  by  some  Episcopalians,  vvho  by  this  union  in 
support  of  the  University,  declare  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no  conse- 
quence what  direction  may  be  given  to  learning  and  science;  for  ac- 
cording to  their  principle,  all  the  uses  which  possibly  can  be  made 
of  it  are  equally  beneficial  ?"  Will  they  maintain  that  this  union 
in  support  of  the  University  goes,  directly,  to  the  subversion  of 
learning  and  science  in  North  Carolina?  Will  they  maintain  that  it 
implies,  in  all  who  are  thus  united,  the  opinion  that  Infidels,  Bap- 
tists,  Methodists,  kc.  are  all  eq<ially  right  ?     We  presume  th.it  not 

a  m.m  in  the  Diocese  would  ttuiik  and  act  thus  preposterously. 

Well,  what  is  the  difference  between  this  case,  and  that  of  the  Bible 
Society?  It  certainly  would  be  more  pK-asant  to  co-operate  with 
men  who  are  all  of  one  mind  wiih  us — But  a.s  this  is  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, we  may  all  co-operate  on  this  principle,  that  learning  is  a 
good  thing;  and  nlthough  il  may  be  .ibused,  yet  it  is  better  for  the 
people  to  be  with  U  tii m  vvithont  il.  And  on  this  principle,  every 
friend  to  North  Carolina  rejoices  to  see  gentlemen  of  different  per- 
suasions co-operating  in  the  building  up  and  support  of  a  valuable 
and  flourishing  seat  of  learning  in  that  state.  And  so  all  who  duly 
honor  the  word  of  God,  and  take  enlarged  views  of  the  condition  of 
the  world,  rejoice  in  the  formation  and  success  of  the  Bible  Sedety. 


156  Mevinv  of  Bishop  Jta-oensereJVs  Vindication  andDafeuee. 

But  the  bishop  maintains  (p.  77,)  with  a  pertinacity  truly  ama- 
zing, that  the  no  comment  principle  recognises  the  equal  truth  and 
safety  of  all  the  opposite  opinions  derived  from  the  Bible;  and  he 
endeavors  to  throw  us  on  one  horn  or  another  of  a  dilemma,  by 
which  he  seems  to  think  we  must  certainly  be  gored.     "  For  of  ne- 
cessity, says  he,  the  Society  must  either  believe  that  all  varieties 
•f  religious  profession  drawn  from  the  Bible,  are  equally  right,  in 
the  sense  of  being  equally  safe;  or  they  must  believe  that  some  of 
them  are  unscriptural  and  unsafe.     If  the  former  of  the  alternatives 
fwe  suppose  he  means  the  foimcr  part  of  the  alternative,]  is  adopt- 
ed, the  principle  is  demonstrated  to  be   productive   of  divisions  iu 
religion  without  limit.     If  the  latter  shall  be  resorted  to,  it  shows 
the  principle  to  be  justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  withholding  from 
the  Bible  what  is  essential  to  a  right  understanding  of  its  contents." 
We  have  never  seen  any  thing  more  harmless  in  all  our  lives — 
it  is  as  gentle  as  "any  sucking  dove,"     The  Bible  Society  as  a 
body,  being,  as  we  have  shown,  a  company  formed  exclusively  for 
the  wider  distribution  of  the  Bible,  is  obliged  to  believe  nothing  but 
that  the  fair,  natural,  obvious  construction  of  the  Bible  will  bring 
before   the  minds  of  men  truth,  which  may  make  them  wise  unto 
salvation.     As  a  body,  they  maintain  no  other  opinion  whatsoever. 
.Tust  as  a  company  of  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  &,c.  formed  for 
the  promotion  of  learning,  are  obliged  to  believe  as  a  company^ 
nothing  but  this,  that  learning  is  beneficial.     And  even  should  the 
Society  make  the  extravagant  declaration  supposed  in  the  dilemma, 
it  would  be  only  the  declaration  of  a  company  without  authority — 
it  would  prove  nothing  but  the  extravagance  of  the  men  who  made 
it.     As  for  the  Bible,  it  would  remain  just  the  same,  a  full  expres- 
sion of  the  counsel  of  God;  in  all  fundamental  matters  so  plain,  that 
every  humble  inquirer  after  truth,  may  learn  the  way  to  heaven. 
Bishop  R.  has  shown  that,  in  his  deliberate  opinion,  the  Bible  fully 
supports  Episcopacy.     He    acts  under   this  conviction  in    all   his 
ministrations.     The  members  of  his  vestry  and  his  church,  give 
sufficient  evidence   publicly,  that  this  is  their  conviction  also. — 
Should  they  join  the  Bible  Society  of  North  Carolina,  do  they  for 
a  moment  imagine  that  any  body  \n  the  slate  would   suspect  them 
of  believing  that  people  might  as  well  be  Presbyterians  as  Episco- 
palians ?     Would  it  not  rather  be  said,  "  These  people  begin  to 
think  that  the  Bible  is  on  their  side — and   that  its  circulation  will 
promote  their  cause?     May  not  similar  remarks  in  some  degree  be 
applied  to  Presbyterians  and  others;  even  to  all   the  members  of 
the   Bible   Society?     Can  that  then  be  true  of  the   whole  body, 
which  is  not  true  of  any  of  its  parts,  or  of  all  of  them?     We  wonder 
much  that  the  bishop  is  not  afraid  lest  his  opposition  to  the  Bible 
cause,  will  excite  the  suspicion  that  the  Bible,  in  its  plain  obvious 
sense,  will  not  lead   men  to  (he  chvrck?      The  Bible  Society  is  not 
obliged   then   to  believe  what   bishop  R.  thinks  it  must.     So  one 
horn  of  the  dilemma  is  broken.     And  should  that  Institution  deny 
the  extravagant  opinion  before  adverted  to,  it  would  not  forsake  its 
own  principles.     There  is  not  a  shadow  of  inconsistency  between 
saying,  "  You  may  not  wrest  the  scriptures  to  favor  your  own  pas- 
sions  and  prejudices:"  and  saying  "  Take  the  Bible  as  it  is,  in  its 


Beview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindimtion  and  Dejmce.  l^T 

plain  meaning,  and  it  will  make  you  wise  unto  salvation."     And  ss 
we  have  here  a  dilemma,  with  no  horns. 

In  ringing  changes  on  this  subject  the  bishop  (as  may  be  seea 
from  the  extract  made  from  pp.  80,  81,)  undertakes  to  account  for 
the  popularity  of  the  Bible  Society.  It  gives  countenance  he  says 
to  two  prevalent  delusions". 

1.  That  every  man  may  form  his  own  system  of  faith  and  ordei; 
in  religion. 

2.  That  all  who  call  themselves  christians  ought  to  be  acknowl- 
edged as  such,  no  matter  how  widely  they  differ. 

On  these  points  we  must  offer  some  remarks,  to  which  we  en- 
treat the  attention  of  our  readers. 

1.  As  to  the  tirst;  we  have  a  very  fair  opportunity  of  retorting 
on  bishop  R.  his  own  words  in  another  place.  The  terms  used  by 
him,  taken  in  their  unrestrirted  sense,  imply  that  it  is  a  prevalent 
opinion  among  the  friends  of  the  Bible  Society,  that  every  man  may 
safely  form  his  own  system  of  taith,  whether  he  refers  to  the  word 
of  God  or  not.  And  we  might  say  to  him,  "  Sir  you  knew  better." 
But  we  take  no  advantages  of  this  sort.  Bishop  R.  meant  to  say 
that  it  is  a  prevalent  error,  that  men  may  safely  form  for  themselves 
a  system  of  faith  from  the  word  of  God.  In  relation  to  this  subject, 
the  Bible  Society  is  bound  by  its  principle  to  mamtain  the  follow- 
ing position;  that  the  wt)rd  of  God  is  so  plain,  that  he  who  honestly 
inquires  for  truth,  may  learn  it  from  the  Scriptures.  That  this  is 
no  delusion,  we  have  already  shown,  when  treating  on  the  sufficien 
cy  of  the  sacred  writings.  If  a  man  has  no  helps  in  understanding 
them,  diligent  reading,  and  humble  prayer  for  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  will  enable  him  to  find  the  way  to  Heaven.  But  he 
who  has  access  to  notes  and  comments,  to  the  church  and  the  minis- 
try, yet  proudly  relies  on  his  own  understanding,  slights  his  privi' 
leges,  and  runs  great  risk  of  falling  into  fatal  errors.  He  who  en- 
joys most  means  of  understanding  the  word  of  God,  is,  ceteris  pari- 
bus, in  the  most  advantageous  situation.  But  in  every  case,  one 
must,  with  such  helps  as  he  has,  form  his  own  system  of  faith  for 
himself,  under  his  convictions  of  truth,  and  his  responsibility  to  his 
Maker.  Otherwise,  what  is  his  religion,  but  the  religion  of  his 
priest?  If  the  man,  who  transacts  business  belxu'een  us  and  God,  could 
in  the  day  of  judgment  answer  for  us,  and  hear  the  consequences 
of  our  errors,  then  the  opposite  plan  would  be  safe.  But  as  long  as 
religion  is  a  personal  concern,  every  man  must  judge  for  himself  as 
well  as  he  can.  Every  man,  indeed,  is  in  danger  of  being  mistaken, 
no  matter  what  his  advantages  are.  But  this  danger  does  not  arise 
from  the  obscurity  of  the  vvord  of  God  in  matters  essential  to  salva- 
tion, but  from  the  blindness  of  the  hum.m  mind,  and  the  passions 
of  the  human  heart.  Every  man  then  ought  to  remember  his  re- 
sponsibility. Yet  we  must  judge  for  ourselves.  And  this  right  of 
private  judgment  is  one  of  the  l^undamental  principles  of  Protestan- 
ism;  it  is  indispensable  to  the  enjoyment  of  religious  liberty;  it  is 
implied  in  the  very  nature  of  religion.  Every  man,  then,  must, 
with  the  best  help  he  can  obtain,  form  his  own  system  of  faith  froa» 
the  word  of  God;  and  if  he  may  not  do  it  safely  in  this  way;  be  caa« 
not  do  it  safely  at  all.  And  this,  so  far  frow  beinja  delwsioB;  is  a* 
all -important  truth. 


1 5"S  Bcricvj  of  JSishop  Eaxmscroji's  Vindication  and  Bejtiice. 

2.  The  flcUision  that  all  who  profess  to  be  christians,  are  chris 
tians  indeed,  however  opposite  their  religious  sentiments,  is  not 
one  that  belongs  to  the  Bible  Society.  The  principle  of  the  asso- 
ciation is,  that  the  Bible  phiinl^^  tearhes  the  truth;  and  that,  if  it  ia 
put  into  the  hands  of  men,  they  may  jivom  it  learn  the  truth.  And 
it  does  appear  to  us  unaccotnitahjp.  that  any  should  force  from  this 
simple  principle  the  con-'luJiiou,  that  all,  believe  what  they  may, 
are  equally  right.  We  wouM  a?i(,  does  not  the  most  plain  and  na- 
tural construction  of  the  Biblo,  give  its  true  meaninj;?  Is  it  not 
much  more  probable  that  a  man  in  searcii  of  savinj^  knowledge,  will 
derive  the  true  system  from  the  Bible,  than  a  f.lse  cm?  If  bishop 
R.  denies  this,  then  he  mu»t  suppose  that  the  word  of  God  is  so 
framed,  although  its  design  is  to  give  instruction,  that  it  is  as  likely 
to  lead  men  wrong  as  to  direct  (hem  in  the  ri^iht  way.  And  if  he 
rejects,  as  surely  he  does  with  horror,  an  opinion  of  this  sort;  how 
can  he  charge  the  Bible  Sorielv  with  holding  the  enormous  absur- 
dity, that  all  religious  opinions,  h^iwevtr  opposite,  are  equally 
sound  and  safe?  The  Society  circulates  a  Book,  the  fair  and  natu- 
ral construction  of  which  discovers  (he  truth;  yet  they  are  charged, 
in  effect,  with  indifference  to  truth.  It  may  as  well  be  said  that  a 
benevolent  association  formed  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the 
poor  with  flour  in  a  time  of  sc.ircity,  i.-  inaiflVient  wlietiier  thy  mix 
poison  with  it,  wbt  n  thpy  m  ikc  it  into  brt-ad.  It  woul.i  not  alter 
the  case,  if  in  this  assoi^iation,  there  were  a  few  individuals,  who 
had  got  into  the  strange  liahil  of  mixing  pnison  with  their  own 
bread;   provider!  tl>ey  mixed  none  uilh  the  flour  given  to  the  poor. 

In  pursuing  this  subject,  if  bishop  R.  ^oes  to  the  bottom  of  it,  he 
so  "muddies  the  v;aters,"  tti;!t  ne  cannot  see  him.  "But  sir,  says 
he,  the  religion  of  the  gospel  i^  a  positive  institution,  which  Bible 
Societies,  and  sectarian  professions  of  faith  cannot  control,  and 
mould,  and  model  to  suit  their  p  'rticulai  views,  but  by  which  they 
ought  to,  and  must  he  regulated."  If  we  understand  this,  it  means 
that  the  gospel  contains  a  system  of  truih;  and  men,  to  partake  of 
its  benefits,  must  embrace  the  truth  as  revealed,  and  not  warp  it  to 
suit  their  prejudices.  Very  good!  But  how  does  this  prove  that 
the  Bible,  which  reveals  this  system,  fiaay  not  safely  be  put  into  the 
hands  of  men?  He  goes  on;  "  And  a  principle  in  religion  or  con- 
nected with  religion  as  revealed,  which  cannot  bear  being  carried 
out  to  its  "  legitimate  consequences  and  results,  is  not  of  God. 
The  wisdom  of  God  sends  -is  nothing  in  his  word,  or  connected  with 
his  religion,  of  this  abstract  unmanageable  char;<cft>r;  beautiful  in 
theory,  impossible  or  injurious  in  practice."  What  consequences, 
or  results,  or  abstractions,  does  the  right  reverend  preacher  mean. 
And  how  does  this  prove  that  the  Go:-pel  in  its  piirily  ought  not  to 
be  distribated  ?  We  do  wish  that  tlie  writer  had  given  us  a  regular 
syllogism  here. 

But  the  author  proceeds  and  waxes  more  vebement  as  he  advan- 
ces, until  we  come  to  Ihe  wonderlul  declamation  res|  ecting  Deisti- 
cal  Christians,  Unitarian  Christians,  Univeisalist  Christians,  kc. 
iic;  and  (on  page  83)  respecting  John  Bockholt  and  George  Fox, — 
John  Calvin  and  John  Wesley— Anna  Lee  and  Joanna  Southcote — 
Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  Bishop  Ridley.— [The   Bible  Society 


JRevietJt)  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defenee.  13?» 

l>east  will  "  beat  that  of  Revelation  all  to  nothing."]  "  These,  says 
the  bishop,  all  professed  to  derive  their  religion  from  the  Bible." — 
Indeed  !  We  had  always  understood  that  several  of  them  were  pre- 
tenders to  ioi^piration;  and  set  their  "inward  lii^ht"  above  the  Bible. 
"Yet  (brever  and  forever,  must  it  not  hold  good — tltat  whether  right 
or  wrong,&c.  must  depend  on  Scripture  well  or  ill  interpreted,  &.c?" 
Beyond  a  doubt  it  must.  "  These  all  could  not  be  right,  some  must 
be  radically  wrong," — Admitted,  again.  But  .pray,  now,  tell  us,  right 
reverend  sir,  which  of  all  these  were  radicttlhj  wrong.  Were  Cal- 
vin, and  Wesley,  and  Cranmer,  and  Ridley  radically  wrong?  Or 
is  this  to  be  said  of  Bockliolt  and  Fox,  Lee  and  Southcote  ?  Wc 
admit  that  some  were  radically  wrong;  and  that  none  were  in  every 
thing  inf.dlibly  right.  But  the  radicallxj  wrong,  were  piecisely 
those  very  persons,  who  rejected  the  Bible,  and  pretended  to  ti 
new  illumination.  We  doubt  very  much  indeed,  whether  the  bishop 
can  find,  in  all  the  records  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  amidst  all 
the  varieties  of  Christian  belief,  any  denomination  bearing  the 
name  Christ,  which  has  adhered  to  the  plain  meaning  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  yet  has  been  radic.allij  wrong.  But  of  the  rest;  some 
have  been  misled  by  substituting  liieir  own  reason  for  the  wisdom 
of  God;  others  by  implicit  belief  in  the  Fathers;  and  others  by 
fanaticid  imjiulses  and  wild  notions  about  inspiration.  Tlie  very 
instances  adduced  by  bishop  \\.  give  strong  support  to  the  Bible 
Society.  And  let  him  know,  that  the  very  best  pieservative  against 
radical  error,  is  the  general  circulation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Had  the  Bible  Society  been  originated  at  the  Reformation,  and  pur- 
sued its  operations  successfully,  we  venture  to  say  that  there  would 
have  been  no  place  for  these  wild  and  dark  fanatics  in  the  protes- 
tant  world.  And  we  beg  leave  to  take  this  opportunity  of  saying 
that  history  and  experience  present  to  the  church  and  the  world 
this  alternative — Either  the  religious  liberty  of  the  people  must  be 
taken  from  them  and  conscience  must  be  put  into  the  keeping  of  priests; 
or  the  Bible  must  be  generally  circulated,  and  the  people  accustomed  to 
judge  for  themselves.  In  other  words,  the  people,  with  the  Bible 
in  their  hands  must  be  a  check  on  the  ministers  of  religion,  must 
bring  their  doctrine  to  the  standard  of  God's  word;  or  as  the  Apos- 
tle says,  must  try  the  spirits;  otherwise  that  spiritual  tyranny  will 
be  revived,  which  degrades  the  understanding,  which  debases  the 
whole  man,  and  brings  him  to  believe  that  his  priest  can  make  his 
God  for  him,  can  pardon  his  sins,  an<l  give  him  a  passport  to  heaven. 
There  is  not  the  shadov\  of  a  foundation  for  the  charge  of  delu- 
sion on  the  Bible  Society.  But  tlie  bishop  himself  labors  under  a 
sad  mistake  as  to  the  reason  wh\  we  wish  tiiat  all  denominations  of 
Christians  should  cooperate  in  this  work  of  bpuevolence.  We 
refer  to  the  whole  work  undi-r  review,  but  especi.dly  to  pages  80, 
and  93,  to  justify  us  in  the  iollowing  siatem^nt.  Bishojt  R,  thinks 
that  the  order  of  bishops  (in  his  sense  of  l  le  woni)  is  essential  to 
the  very  being  of  tht-  Church;  and  that  thai  part  of  the  christian 
world  which  is  connected  vvitu  bishops  constitutes  the  church;  while 
all  the  rest  are  without  a  ministry,  witliout  sacraments,  without 
warranted  hopes,  and  with  nothing  to  depend  on,  but  the  uncove- 
nanted  mercies  of  God.    He  kuows  that  they  whom  it  gratifies  him 


J  60  Review  of  Biihop  UavenaeroJV s  Vindication  and  Bejenee. 

to  call  Dissenters,  acknowledge  prote.st;int  Episcopalians  to  be  a 
branch  of  the  true  church;  while  he  and  his  hijfh  church  brethren 
refuse  to  acknowledge  them.  He  does  not  know,  perhaps,  what 
the  celebrated  archbishop  Tillotson  said  respecting  a  similar  case 
between  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  Church  of  England.  "It 
only  proves,  said  he,  that  the  Church  of  England  is  more  liberal 
than  the  Church  of  Rome."  Bishop  R.  manifestly,  takes  it  for 
granted  that  the  Dissenters  are  not  perfectly  satisfied,  or  that  they 
would  be  better  satisfied;  with  their  forms  and  order,  if  Episcopa- 
lians would  acknowledge  them  to  be  a  part  of  the  true  Church;  and 
he  seems  to  suppose  that  this  zeal  for  "promiscuous,  no  comment" 
Bible  Societies,  arises  from  what  appears  to  be  a  sort  of  acknowl- 
edgment of  other  denominations  made  by  Episcopalians,  when 
they  become  members  of  such  Societies.  And  this  too,  we  verily 
believe,  constitutes  one  main  reason  of  the  opposition  of  high- 
churchmen  to  Bible  Societies.  Their  conduct  speaks  this  language; 
"If  we  unite  with  others  in  disseminating  the  Bible,  we  shall  abandon 
our  high  ground,  and  acknowledire  tliem  to  be  members  of  the 
church,  as  well  as  ourselves.  And  this  is  what  they  wish." — But 
in  good  sooth,  it  is  not  so.  We  do  indeed  acknowledge  Episcopa- 
lians as  mr-nibers  of  the  Church  of  Christ;  and  when  they  will  allow 
HS,  we  delight  to  meet  them  as  brethren.  But  we  acknowledge 
that  bishops  have  auth  rity  to  ordain,  &.c.  not  because  they  are  bish- 
ops, but  because  they  are  priests  — that  is  presbyters.  They  have 
authority  then,  precisely  for  the  same  reason,  that  we  have  author- 
ity. These  our  convictions  are  founded  on  the  plain  meaning  of 
the  word  of  God;  and  the  acknowledgment  of  our  church  member- 
ship by  all  the  men  in  the  world,  could  not  add  "an  atom's  force"  to 
Gur  assurance.  But  we  should  rejoice  in  the  event,  as  evidence  of 
the  increase  of  truly  christian  feelings  ;  as  an  omen  for  good  to 
the  church:  as  a  token  of  the  hastening  on  of  the  day  of  glory, 
promised  by  God,  and  prayed  for  by  his  people. — It  is  in  vain,  we 
know,  to  hope  that  men,  whose  views  of  religion  are  imperfect,  and 
whose  souls  are  narrowed  by  bigotry,  will  enter  into  the  feelings  of 
those  who  look  more  to  the  effect  produced  by  truth,  than  to  the 
form  in  which  it  is  exhibited;  and  who  value  external  observances 
precisely  as  they  are  suited  to  make  men  humble,  benevolent  and 
holy.  But  we  believe  that  the  time  is  coming,  when  the  disciples 
of  Christ  throughout  the  world,  will  love  trutl.  and  holiness  so 
much,  that  wherever  they  shall  see  the  one  so  embraced  as  to  pro- 
duce the  other,  they  will  rejoire  in  it.  no  matter  by  what  forms  this 
truth  may  have  been  exhibited  and  rommended.  Then  will  the 
church  appear  in  all  her  jrlory.  It  is  for  the  hastening  on  of  a  con- 
summation so  devoutly  to  be  wished,  that  we  long  to  see  Chris- 
tians acknowledging  each  other,  and  ro-operatmg,  wherever  they 
can  do  so,  without  a  sacrifice  of  principle.  And  if  they  cannot  do 
SO,  because  forms  and  modes  are,  in  their  judgment,  principles  of 
religion;  why,  we  do  not  wish  them  to  violate,  but  we  wish  them  to 
inform  their  consciences. 

Farther ;  we  do  ourselves  fully  believe  that  all  those  christian 
societies,  which,  in  the  spirit  of  party,  or  on  account  of  an  undue 
stress  on  modes  of  ordination,  baptism,  &c.  &c.  refuse  to  co-operate 


Seview  of  Bishop  Ravenseroft*s  Vindication  and  Befence.  16  i 

in  building  up  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  will  be  destroyed  "by 
the  breath  of  his  mouth,  and  by  the  brightness  of  his  coming." — 
To  high  churchmen,  then,  we  wish  a  better  mmd,  for  thejr  owa 
sakes,  not  for  our  ovvn  ;  for  the  honor  of  our  common  religion,  not 
for  the  benefit  of  a  sect  or  a  party. 

2.  As  the  Bible  Society  does  not  hold  that  all  systems  pretended 
to  be  derived  from  the  Bible  are  equally  safe  ;  so,  it  does  not  hold 
that  all  are  equally  entitled  to  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

There  is  an  mtimate  connexion  between  these  two  points,  so 
that  much  that  may  be  said  on  one,  equally  applies  to  the  other. 
We  cannot,  tiowever,  speak  with  any  certaint)  respecting  the  ex- 
tent of  the  bishop's  meaning  here.  It  may  l)e  thus, — God,  in  the 
gracious  constitution  of  his  covenant,  has  promised  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  make  the  truth  effectual  to  the  sanctitication  of  his  people.  Now 
the  "no  com.nent  principle"  maintains  that  opposite  systems  of  re- 
ligious belief  are  equally  "safe  for  salvation."  But  no  system  of  re- 
ligious belief  is  effectual  without  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Therefore  the  "no  comment  principle"  maintains  that  opposite  sys- 
tems are  according  to  the  promise  of  God  equally  entitled  to  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit.  Bishop  R.  may  carry  his  meaning  farther 
than  we  should  in  using  the  words  above  ;  and  make  a  system  of  re- 
ligious belief  include  the  external  form  of  the  church,  as  well  as  the 
doctrine  embraced  by  it,  and  taught  in  it. 

Now  we  might  easily  despatch  this  topic  in  very  few  words  ; 
thus — The  Bible  Society,  as  we  have  shown,  does  not  hold  that 
opposite  sj'Stems  of  religious  faith  are  equally  safe  ;  and  therefore 
it  does  not  hold  that  they,  who  embrace  opposite  systems,  are  equal- 
ly warranted  to  expect  the  "witness  of  the  spirit." — But  in  treating 
this  part  of  the  subject  bishop  R.  touches  many  things,  which  we 
tilso  must  handle.  And  as  he  sums  up  all  that  lie  has  to  say,  in  the 
way  of  argument,  on  this  topic  in  a  syllogism,  we  may  as  well  as  not, 
turn  to  that  at  once. 

"Many  opposite  systems  of  religious  profession  are  derived  from 
the  Bible,  in  which  'the  pious  of  every  name  have  felt  the  power 
of  divine  truth,  and  know  the  preciousness  of  the  Bible,' and  are 
saved. 

But  no  saving  knowledge  can  be  drawn  from  the  scriptures,  but 
by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Therefore,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  is  equally  given  to 
opposite  interpretations  of  Scripture." 

"And  this  I  hope  will  satisfy  your  desire  for  a  regular  syllogism — 
will  teach  you  to  look  to  the  consistency  and  aj.reement  of  the  prin- 
ciples you  advocate,  with  the  reasonings  you  resort  to — w  ill  lead  you 
to  be  sorry  for  your  so  frequpnt  and  needless  attacks  on  that  wliicb, 
if  you  have  either  piety  or  taste,  you  must  love  the  book  of  Common 
Prayer." — p.  86. 

It  is  always  painful  to  us  to  disappoint  the  high  hopes  of  any  fel- 
low creature.  But  there  is  no  help  for  it.— This  syllogi>m  has  not 
done  one  of  the  things  which  the  bishop  so  confidently  expected  to 
be  achieved  by  it.  It  does  not  satisfy  us  ;  because  it  is  not  a  regular 
syllogism. — It  does  not  teach  us  ;  because  we  have  not  been  guilty 
of  the  inconsistency  charged,— It  does  not  make  «s  sorry;  because 


I6i2  Review  of  Bisi'wp  Itaveiistroft's  Vindication  and  BefencE* 

we  have  not  yet  made  the  alleged  attack.  Yet  we  are  sorry  too- 
sorry  to  see  X  bishop  put  forth  a  form  of  words  hke  tHat,  and  call 
them  a  regular  (jyllogism  ;  and  appear  to  consider  it  as  triumphant 
reasoning.  A  regular  syllogism  !  We  should  as  soon  mistake  a 
brown  loaf  for  a  shoulder  of  mutton. 

We  reject  the  syllogism  for  two  reasons. 

1.  The  affirmative  proposition  contained  in  the  major,  is  denied. 
Our  logician  intends  to  defeat  our  reasoning  in  favor  of  the  Bible 
Society,  by  reducing  us  to  an  absunliry.  He  therefore  affirms  that 
we  maintain  this  proposition  ;  that  opposite  systems  of  faith  pro- 
duce the  same  pious  feelings;  or  that  opposite  doctrines  contain 
that  divine  truth  which  the  pious  of  every  name  feel.  Kegatur 
major — this  we  utterly  deny. 

In  our  former  Review,  we  had  said  that  Protestants  are  divided 
into  a  number  of  different  Henomin.itions,  chiefly  by  matters  of  ex- 
ternal observance.  But  K'at  ;dl  derived  their  religion  from  the  scrip- 
tures ;  and  that  the  pious  among  them  of  cjer;/ name,  have  felt  the 
power  of  divine  truth,  and  know  the  preciousness  of  the  Bible. 
Here  is  ground  on  which  all  can  meet — one  calm  and  peaceful 
place,  &c. 

The  bishop  admits  that  Sectarians  are  thus  divided  among  them- 
selves ;  but  in  that  courteous  language  for  which  he  is  so  remark- 
able, he  says,  "/t  is  not  true,  as  respects  the  separation  of  Secta- 
rians from  Episcopalians — it  is  totally  false — [we  italicize  his  words] 
as  respects  myself,  1  am  divided  from  no  Protestant  denomination, 
noryet  is  the  church  to  which  I  In-long,  so  divided  on  a  matter  of 
mere  external  observance,  on  a  point  that  is  not  of  positive  institu- 
tion, and  fundamental  iiiiportance  to  religion  as  revealed.  .  Yet  this 
is  also,  one  of  the  deceits  practised  on  the  ignorant." 

Now  let  the  people  judge.  The  different  denominations  of  chris- 
tians, usually  included  in  the  terra  Protestant,  have  drawn  out  into 
a  series  of  distinct  propositions,  the  opinions  which  they  have  de- 
rived from  scripture.  These  propositions,  as  far  as  they  are  thought 
to  be  very  important,  are  framed  into  articles.  We  have  taken  some 
pains  in  comparing  the  articles  of  different  churches  ;  and,  using 
a  certain  number  for  a  large  number,  we  would  say  that  there  are 
0ty  particulars  in  which  the  confessions  of  the  Protestant  churches 
harmonize,  for  one  in  which  they  differ.  Nay  ;  we  could  select 
two  Episcopalians,  to  whom  we  would  assign,  separately,  the  work 
of  drawing  out  into  distinct  form  all  the  propositions  contained  in  the 
39  articles  of  the  Churcli  of  England  ;  and  then  take  a  Presbyterian, 
and  require  that  he  should  do  tlie  same  thing  in  relation  to  ihe  cor- 
responding articles  of  his  confession  ;  and  we  would  venture  our 
life  upon  it,  that  the  two  Episcopalians  would  differ  in  many  more 
points,  than  one  of  them  would  ditier  in  from  the  Presbyterian.  Or 
we  would  be  willing  to  take  tlie  system  of  Divinity  .Irawn  up 
by  Archbishop  Usher  and  the  pamphlets  and  sermons  published  by 
bishop  Ravenscroft;  and  point  out  more  and  greater  diflt-rences  be- 
tween the  archbishop  and  the  bishop,  than  we  can  find  between  our 
•wn  creed,  and  the  39  articles.  Making  these  articles  the  standaid, 
the  principal  points  of  difference  respect  the  form  of  the  church. 
"We  believe  in  the  Hoiy  Trinity,  in  the  Word  or  Son  of  God  made 


Meview  of  Bishop  'B.avenscrctjfs  Vindication  and  Defence.  IG3 

man,  in  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  in  the  sufficiency  of 
the  scriptures,  in  the  doctiiue  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  as  much  of 
the  three  creeds  as  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrant  of  Holy 
Scripture,  in  original  or  birth  sin,  in  the  disability  of  will  after  the 
fall  of  Adam,  in  justitication  by  faith,  in  good  works,  &c.  &:c.  &c. 
throughout  the  articles  with  very  few  exceptions.  Then  according 
to  the  Episcopal  standard  of  doctrine,  the  differences  between  Epis- 
copalians and  Presbyterians  are  very  slight.  The  variations  are 
principally  these.  1.  Episcopalians  use  a  liturgy,  and  Presbyte- 
rians do  not.  But  they  both  pray  for  the  same  blessings.  The  dif- 
ference here  is  in  form  surely.  2.  Episcopalians  have  three 
orders  of  ministers,  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons  ;  but  Presby- 
terians have  only  one,  that  of  bishops  or  presbyters  :  but  they 
prea(^h  substantially  the  same  truths.  3.  They  differ  in  the  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments  :  bui  these  sacraments  are  signs  and  seals 
of  the  same  righteousness  of  faith.  Let  every  man  of  common  ua- 
derstanding  say,  whether  these  differences  are  not  differences  in 
relation  to  matters  of  more  external  observance.  Mow  could  the 
bishop  then  say  such  a  "naughty  word"  as,  "it  is  false?" 

These  remarks  have  prepared  the  reader  to  judge,  whether 
the  protestant  confessions  contain  opposite  systems  of  religious  be- 
lief. We  maintain  that  protestants  hold  much  truth  in  common.  We 
took  bishop  R.'s  statement  of  truths  held  by  him  as  fundamental, 
and  are  prepared  to  show  that  the  different  communions  included  ia 
the  term  protestants,  as  generally  used,  hold  substantially  the  same 
truths.  They  do  not  maintain  opposite  systems  then.  There  are 
in  the  United  States,  24  independent  Republics,  the  constitutions  of 
which  are  all  founded  on  the  same  great  principles  of  civil  liberty: 
yet  in  a  number  of  subordinate  particulars,  all  these  forms  of  state 
polity  differ  among  themselves.  Bisliop  R.  may  as  well  say  that 
they  hold  opposite  systemsof  politics,  as  that  the  Protestant  churches 
hold  opposite  systems  of  religious  belief.  Two  men  wear  coats; 
one  a  plain  coat;  the  other,  lapelled.  Both  have  bodies,  and  skirts, 
and  sleeves,  and  buttons,  and  pockets;  and  both  answer  the  very 
same  purposes— BuT  they  have  a  slight  difference  of  form.  Have 
these  men  opposite  refisons  for  wearing  a  coat?  Or  will  the  bishop 
say  that  the  man  who  wears  a  plain  coat,  wears  no  coat  at  all? 

It  is  impossible  for  him  to  maintain  an  opinion  contrary  to  this  of 
ours,  unless  he  is  also  prepared  to  hold  this,  that  the  nature  of  re- 
vealed religion  is  such,  that  its  saving  effect  does  not  depend  solely 
on  the  truth  revealed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  as  believed,  and  embraced 
with  all  tlie  heart;  but  also  on  the  mode,  or  instruraentulity  by  which 
it  is  conveyed  to  the  mind.  It  is  not  true  then  that  the  Protestant 
denominations  derive  opposite  systems  from  the  Bible. 

2.  The  other  ol)jection  which  we  have  to  the  syllogism  is  that 
the  conclusion  has  in  it  a  term  not  contained  in  the  premises.  We 
mean  the  word  eq,uallv.  Wliat  has  the  bishop  forgotten  his  logic? 
Did  he  not  know  that  in  order  to  render  the  syllogism  a  good  one, 
he  ought  to  have  had  in  the  major,  the  terms,  an  equal  number  of 
the  pious,  have  E(iv ALLY  felt  the  [iower  of  divine  truth?  Otherwise 
how  could  he  dare  to  say  in  his  conclusion,  "therefore  the  witness 
21 


i 64  Review  of  Bishop  li^ivenscroJVs  f'indicaUon  and  DeJencCi 

of  the  spirit  of  God,  is  equally  given  to  opposite  interpretations  ot" 
scripture?"     Fie!  Jie!  fie! 

Nothing  that  we  ever  said  or  thought  can  justify  the  declaration 
that  we  hoUi  the  opinion  impHed  in  the  bishop's  syllogism.  Where 
men  differ  in  matters  of  doctrine,  both  cannot  be  right.  They  who 
receive  the  most  truth  are,  other  things  being  equal,  most  likely  to 
become  holy.  Tho  Holy  Spirit  never  uses  any  thing  but  truth  for 
the  sanctification  of  sinners.  We  now  will  try  our  hand  at  a  syllo- 
gism, and  in  it  will  express  what  we  really  do  maintain  as  christians 
and  friends  of  the   Bible  Society. 

The  Protestant  churches  df-rive  from  scripture,  and  jjold  in  com- 
mon the  fundamental  truths  of  the  gospel. 

But  it  is  such  truths,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  effectual  to  sal- 
Tation. 

Therefore  there  are  in  the  Protestant  churches  truly  pious  per- 
sons, who  have  felt  the  power  of  divine  truth,  and  have  been  made 
wise  unto  salvation. 

Corollary.  Hence  the  members  of  Protestant  churches  ought  to 
acknowledge  each  other  as  fellow  Christians,  and  co-operate  in  pro- 
moting  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Not  that  we  think  church-mem- 
bership has  any  thing  to  do  with  the  Bible  Society:  but  when  men 
belong  to  the  body  of  Christ,  it  is  a  great  shame  for  them  to  refuse 
to  unite  in  making  known  his  salvation  throujj:bout  the  world. 

We  had  marked  a  number  of  other  passages  under  this  head;  but 
they  are  all  so  much  alike  both  in  their  logic,  and  in  their  temper. 
that  we  think  it  unnecessary  to  notice  them. 

3.  The  third  particular  in  this  part  of  the  subject  is,  that  the  Bi- 
ble Society  encourages  heresy,  schism,  and  divisions  without  end. 
The  following  extracts  will  present  bishop  R's  notions  on  this  sub- 
ject; and  show  his  manner  of  supporting  them. 

«*For  admUting  even,  that  tlie  principle  (i.e.  the  no  comment  principle) 
IS  not  abused  in  Christian  lands,  to  the  formation  of  new  systems,  an:l  sects 
of  religion,  by  the  readers  of  the  naked  Scriptures,  and  tliat  men  arc  stirred 
up  by  the  Bible  alone,  to  seek  the  salvation  of  their  souls  ;  they  must  of  ne- 
cessity, unite  themselves  with  some  one  of  the  various  religious  denomina- 
tions around  them,  or  adopt  the  notion  of  an  invisible  cljurch,  and  rely  on 
inward  assurance,  &c.  becoming  liberal  Chr]s{\nns,  that  is.  Christians  indif- 
ferent  alike  to  the  faith  and  order  of  ilie  Gospel,  on  the  plea  that  all  are 
right  in  so  far  as  salvation  is  concerned.  Now  what  is  this,  but  plainly  and 
palpably  sanctioning  the  prevailing  notion,  that  contradictory  creeds  and 
confessions  of  fiiith,  and  oppositions  of  external  order,  are  equally  safe  for 
the  attainment  of  the  salvation  offered  by  the  gosprl  ?  In  what  does  it 
come  short  of  giving  the  whole  weight  of  these  Bible  Societies  to  the  infi- 
del notion,  that  the  scripture  denounced  sins  of  hert-sy  and  schism,  are 
no  longer  within  the  range  of  our  commissions?  For  one  of  these  two 
things  is  infallibly  certain.  Either,  all  the  various  denominations  of  chris- 
tian profession  within  tl:e^  r^nge  of  Bible  Society  circulation  of  the  Scrip, 
tures  are  equally  true  and  orthodox  branches  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
equally  safe  for  the  attainment  of  salvation  ;  or  some  of  tliem  are  in  heresy 
or  schism— or  both  heretical  and  schismatical,  and  not  thus  safe.  But  the 
Bible  Society  principle,  that  tiie  scriptures  alone  are  sufficient  to  determine 
the  truth  or  error— the  heresy  or  schism,  of  opposite  denominations,  all 
ahke  claiming  the  scriptures  to  be  with  them,  does  give  the  sanction  of  that 
body  to  the  monstrous  proposition,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  entire  indiffrrence 
and  equal  safely,  whichever  denomination  a  man  unites  himself  with  aa  a 
church  member  ;  and  by  i  similar  consequence,  that  the  sins  of  heresy  and 
»chism,are  cither  abrog»tcd,  or  vet  future."— pp.  90,  91, 


Beviexi^  of  Bishop  }iai>easc>'oft*s  yimUcaUou,  and  Defence*  l^;* 

Again, 

"In  their  composition,  and  in  their  principle  of  action,  Bible  Societies  oX 
tliis  stamp,  are  representatives,  and  in  fact  enconragers,  of  the  foulest  blot 
upon  Clnistianily,  its  divisions.  And  the  more  I  reflect  upon  it,  and  the 
more  I  see  of  the  growini^  consequences  of  this  fatal  principle,  the  more 
confirmed  I  am,  that  the  secret  of  its  popularity  is  that  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
face to  the  Sermon.  "  It  leaves  the  field  free  for  their  respective  emissa- 
ries, to  give  their  separate  and  opposite  constructions  of  "  the  one  faith  of 
the  Gospel."  And  when  we  add  to  this,  that  the  Society  itself  as  a  bod)', 
is  a  virtual  acknowledgment  of  every  separate  denomination,  as  a  lawful  and 
Scriptural  brand)  of  the  Catholic  Church,  we  need  not  resort  to  supernatu- 
ral influence  of  a  Heavenly  character,  at  least  to  account  for  the  torrent  like 
nature  of  its  success,  in  a  divided  Christian  world." — p.  94. 

We  here  see  additional  instances  of  the  unsound  logic  of  our  au- 
thor. The  Bible  Society  is  a  virtual  acknowledgment  of  every 
separate  denomination,  as  a  lawful  and  scriptural  branch  of  the 
church  of  Christ.  We  have  shown  that  the  Protestant  churches, 
who  hold,  in  common,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
ought  indeed  to  acknowledge  each  other  as  brethren;  yet  their 
union  in  the  Bible  Society  is  not  to  be  construed  as  an  admission 
that  the  respective  denominations  of  the  several  members  of  the 
association,  are  members  of  the  true  church.  If  two  men  agree  to 
co-operate  in  accomplishing  one  thing,  it  is  no  proof  that  they  agree 
in  another  which  is  different;  especially  when  they  take  pains  to 
let  it  be  known  that  they  do  differ:  nor  is  it  a  declaration  that  the 
points  in  which  they  differ  are  of  a  neutral  or  indifferent  character. 
The  whole  amount  of  the  conclusion  ought  to  be  this,  that  the  thing 
to  be  done  by  their  joint  exertions  is  in  their  judgment  a  good  thing. 
Now  the  universal  protestant  principle  is  that  the  scriptures  are 
"  sufficient  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation."  On  this  ground, 
should  Turks.  Hindoos,  Unitarians,  agree  to  assist  us  in  distributing 
the  Bible,  we  would  gladly  accept  their  aid;  under  the  persuasion 
that  the  plain  meaning  and  natural  construction  of  the  Scriptures 
will  show  the  truth.  And  we  are  sure  that  a  Bible  given  by  a  Turk 
or  a  Hindoo,  is  still  a  Bible,  and  is  just  as  likely  to  lead  one  right, 
as  though  it  were  given  by  an  Archbishop. 

But  let  our  readers  mark  the  reasoning  of  bishop  R.  in  the  first 
of  these  extracts.  Should  the  principle  of  the  Bible  Society  not  be 
abused,  in  christian  lands,  to  the  formation  of  new  sects  and  systems, 
but  should  "men  be  stirred  up  to  seek  the  salvation  of  their  souls, 
they  must  of  necessity  unite  themselves  to  some  of  the  various  de- 
nominations around  them.  &c."  Is  not  here  a  discovery  of  the  se- 
cret of  opposition  to  the  Bible  Society?  Is  not  bishop  R.  afraid 
that  the  distribution  of  the  Bible  alone  will  carry  men  to  dissenting 
denominations?  Hinc  ilia  lachryma!  But  we  ask.  again,  does  the 
fair  construction  of  the  Bible  le;id  men  to  error?  And  if  men  have 
the  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth,  are  they  not  free  to  choose 
their  religious  connexions  1  There  is  then  no  such  necessity  as  the 
bishop  speaks  of  But  we  should  like  to  know  whether  the  bishop 
will  Aitiihold  the  Bible,  if  he  can,  from  men  perishing  in  ignorance 
and  sin,  until  he  can  be  assured  that  they  shall  receive  it  with  such 
notes  and  comments,  as  will  make  them  sound  Episcopalians.  U  it 
bishop  R's.  opinion  that  unless  men  are  in  the  Episcopal  church, 
whether  they  have  the  Bible  or  not;  whether  they  belong  to  other 


■J(3ti  HcrictO  of  Bishop  Ravcnscrnjl's  Vindication  and  Defence. 

ilcnottiinations  or  not,  Ihey  are  in  tlie  condition  of  heathen,  with 
only  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God;  and  that  tlierefore  he  will, 
for  himself,  hold  back  the  Bible,  until  he  can  send  with  it  the 
(Episcopal)  church,  ministry  and  sacraments?  This  we  verily  be- 
lieve to  be  his  real  opinion;  and  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  in- 
stance of  the  extent  to  which  party  feeling  can  carry  h  protestant, 
that  we  have  ever  witnessed.  In  truth  we  believe  that  the  bishop 
thinks  the  condition  of  the  he nthen  better  than  ti«at  of  Protestant 
Dissenters.      And  our  readers  will  jud;!;e  for  themselves. 

In  recommendation  ol"the  Bible  Society,  we  had  said,  that  there 
were  six  hundred  milboris  of  human  beings  without  the  Bdile, — 
Heathens,  Mahomedans  and  nominal  christians,  perishing  in  igno- 
rance and  sin.     On  this  subject,  our  author  expresses  bimself  tlius, 

"As  respects  ndtmina!  Christians,  tliut  is,  persons  under  the  liglU  of  tlie  gos- 
pel, the  assertion  is  true,  und  would  lo  Gnd,  that  this  overflowint,'  benevo- 
lence,  of  wliich  so  nnsch  is  said,  could  be  directefl,  in  tliis  coiiritry  at  least, 
to  tlieir  really  <lfstitute  and  d:iiii<eroiis-conditian,  iiisK^ad  of  t- va^jorating  in 
this  great  emulation  of  ntisguided  zi'al,  which  literally,  takes  the  cliildren's 
portion,  and  squanders  it  unprofitably  upon  strangers.  As  respicts  the 
Heathen,  propeily  so  called,  the  asstrtion  is  not  true,  either  in  its  terms,  or 
in  the  sense  it  is  taken  by  tlie  general  class  of  readers — the  Heathen  are  not 
perishing  because  they  have  not  the  Bible.  'I'he  want  of  it  will  liol  be  charged 
to  their  account,  nor  its  conditions  required  of  thc-m,  neither  will  they  be 
judged  by  its  law — it  is  not  of  their  procuruig,  titat  they  have  not  the  Bible, 
but  of  the  providence  of  Almighty  God.  He  iias  not  seen  fit  in  his  wisdom, 
to  call  them  as  yet  into  covenant  with  him  ;  but  the  time  is  coming,  and  as- 
suredly, when  the  work  is  of  God,  iiis  word  and  his  sarraments,  the  seals  of 
his  covenanted  mercies  vtill  not  be  separated.  In  the  mean  time, his  uncove- 
nanted mercies  are  towards  and  over  them,  and  1  doubt  not  that  many  a 
Heathen  will  rejoice  before  God  forever,  when  Christians  with  tiie  Bible, 
will  be  howling  in  everlasting  darkness.  Yet  this  is  one  of  the  stalking 
borses,  behind  which  to  take  aim  at  contributions  for  'no  comment'  Bible 
Societies.  Nevertheless,  it  is  most  heartily  to  be  wished,  and  most  devout- 
ly to  be  prayed,  and  earnestly  labored  for,  that  the  Heathen  may  be  furnish- 
ed with  the  Bible — not  naked  and  shorn  of  its  strength,  but  as  God  was 
pleased  to  send  it  at  the  first,  with  \\\s  church,  his  ministers,  and  liis  sacra- 
ments, as  his  seals  of  its  precious  promises  to  all  who  receive  them,  and  as 
means  of  his  Heavenly  Grace  to  a  fallen  world."— p.  82. 

The  first  remark  in  this  extract,  appears  to  us  to  assume,  that 
the  Bible  Society  overlooks  the  wants  of  nominal  christians.  But 
this  is  not  so.  The  first  object  of  the  Bibb^.  Society  of  America  is 
to  supply  our  own  population.  It  also  seems  to  take  for  granted, 
that  all,  in  what  is  called  Christendom,  ought  to  be  converted  tiefore 
attempts  are  made  to  bring  the  heathen  to  the  knowledge  of  salva- 
tion. But  the  Apostles  did  not  pursue  this  course.  Our  blessed 
Saviour  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  that  appears  to  be  here  inculca- 
ted, when  he  healed  the  daughter  of  the  woman  of  Canaan;  -or 
■when  he  uttered  the  beautiful  parable  of  the  good  Samaritan,  of 
which  the  true  interpretation  is,  that  every  human  being  is  our  bro- 
ther, to  whom  it  is  in  our  power  to  show  kindness. 

Let  us,  however,  hear  what  the  bishop  says  about  the  heathen. — 
"  It  is  not  true,  either  in  its  terms,  or  in  the  scmisg  it  ist  iken  by  the 
general  class  of  readers — the  kcailien  are  not  perishing  because  they 
have  not  the  Bible.''''  We  had  said,  they  were  perishing  in  ignorance 
and  sin;  manifestly  assigning  ignorance  and  sin  as  the  cause  of  their 


Ite-oiexv  of  Bishm  Ra'censcrqft*s  Tindiention  and  Defence.  167 

perdition.  The  bishop  says,  "  The  watit  of  the  Bible  is  not  the 
cause  of  their  perdition.  .We  say  one  thing,  and  the  bishop  affirms 
that  another  thing,  which  we  did  not  say,  is  not  true.  It  is  a  case 
like  this — suppose  the  inhabitants  of  a  city,  infected  with  a  fjrievous 
pestilence,  to  be  without  suitable  medicine,  and  we  should  say, 
"Thousands  are  perishing  without  suitable  medicine — bishop  R.  on 
the  ground  of  his  reasouina;  mi^ht  contradict  us,  and  -^ay,  "^"It  is  not 
true:  they  are  not  j)erishina;  in  this  way.  The  want  of  medicine 
never  was  the  cause  of  death.  Now  the  Bible  is  to  the  heathen 
peri«<hinir  in  ignorance  and-  sin,  what  suitable  medicine  is  to  the 
sick.  Oiir  revifwcr  wished  all  to  unite  in  sf>ndin<r  to  these  ruined 
souls,  the  remedy  provided  by  the  great  physician.  The  bishop 
refuses.  He  will  not  simkI  the  appropri  ste  remedy  unless  he  can 
also  send  a  doctor  to  prescribe  and  administer.  And  as  he  has  no 
doclor  to  send;  he  thinks  it  better,  to  keep  the  remedy,  and  the 
•written  prescription  at  home,  and  let  the  sick  struggle  with  disease 
as  they  can. 

But  while  the  reviewer  assigned  ignorance  and  sin,  as  the  cause 
of  the  perdition  of  the  heathen,  he  went  no  farther  than  the  word 
of  God  warrants.  He  did  not  say  that  the  heathen  would  be  lost 
because  they  have  not  the  Bible.  He  has  always  been  cautious  in 
speaking  on  this  subject.  But  he  knows,  because  God  has  revealed 
it,  that  '■'■without  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord.'^  And  while 
he  searches  in  vain ,  in  the  language  of  heathens,  for  a  word  expres- 
sive of  the  scriptural  notion  of  holiness;  and  while  he  sees,  in  all 
the  forms  of  heathenism,  pollution  and  sin  and  shame,  he  cannot 
venture  to  use  the  language  of  the  bishop,  and  say,  "  I  doubt  not 
that  many  a  heathen  will  rejoice  before  God  forever,  when  chris- 
tians with  the  Bible,  will  be  howling  in  pveriur.iing  darkness."  We 
know  that  men  do  sadly  abuse  their  privileges;  and  that  they  do 
thus  incur  an  aggravated  condemnation.  "  They  shall  be  beaten 
with  many  stripes."  But  this  does  not  prove  that  it  is  better  to  be 
ignorant  of  the  will  of  God,  than  to  know  it.  Otherwise,  the  men 
who  have  the  greatest  advantages,  the  Bible,  church,  ministry  and 
sacraments,  are  worse  ofif  th;ui  all  others.  But  surely,  he  is  in  a 
better  situation  to  attain  holiness,  who  has  the  Bible,  than  he  who 
has  it  not. — The  xviiith  article  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  in  these 
words,  "  They  also  are  to  be  had  accursed,  that  presume  to  say, 
That  every  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  Law  or  sect  which  he  pro- 
ff.sseth;  so  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his  life  according  to  that 
Law,  and  the  light  of  nature.  For  holy  Srriplure  doth  set  out  unto 
us  only  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  men  must  be  saved." 
If  the  word  accursed  were  left  out  of  this  article,  and  one  of  less 
bitterness  introduced,  we  should  not  hesitate  a  moment  to  subscribe 
to  it.  The  doctrine  of  the  article  is  certainly  true.  Bishop  R. 
will  take  cnre  noi  to  subject  himself  to  the  anathema  here  de- 
nounced. How  tiicn  can  he  hesitate  to  admit  that  the  heathen  will 
much  more  probably  become  holy,  and  be  saved  through  Christ, 
when  they  have  Bibles  to  tell  them  of  Christ,  and  the  way  of  sal- 
vation, than  when  they  have  none?  Why  not  send  them  the  Bible 
then?  But  bishop  R.  seems  disposed  to  wait  for  God's  time! — 
Who  would  have  expected  this,  from  so  zealous  an  anti-calvinist? 


168  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenserofi* s  Vindicatioil  and  heftnca. 


Well,  wonders  never  will  cease.  We  ask,  are  cliristians  at  liberty ^ 
with  the  command  of  God,  "preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, '  = 
sounding  in  their  ears,  to  sit  down  and  say  "  God's  time  has  not  yet 
come  ?"  Does  not  bishop  R.  know  of  what  doctrine  this  is  the 
abuse  ? 

But  let  us  compare  the  bishop's  opinions  concerning  the  heathen, 
with  those  which  he  has  expressed  concerning  Jmen?crs. 


THE  HEATHEN. 

"His  (God's)  iincovenanted  mer- 
cies are  towards  and  over  them,  and 
I  DOUBT  NOT,  tliat  many  a  lieathen 
will  rejoice  before  God  forever;  ivhile 
christians  ivith  the  Hible,  luill  be  hoivl 
ingin  everlasting'  darkness." — [  Tliesr 
christians  with  ihe  Bible,  are  we  pre- 
sume dissenters.  But  he  may  also 
include  impenitc-nt  and  wicked  Epis- 
coRalians.l 


DISSENTERS. 

"To  be  entitled  to  tliat  mercy  en 
the  only  safe  ground,  his  revealed 
word,  we  must  be  found  within  the 
rule  which  includes  it  as  a  covenant 
stipulation.  Of  any  other  state  or 
condition  different  from  this,  we  can 
SAT  NOTHING,  because  we  know  no- 
thing.  There  .may  be  tnerci/,  but  it  ie 
not  rt  vented."  f  Mecklenburg  Ser- 
mon.J  In  appl3ing  the  conduct  of 
the  Apostle  to  the  case  of  diaaentere, 
and  the  conduct  oi  clergymen  towards 
ihem,  he  says, 

"  Does  he  acknowledge  the  teach- 
ers,  who  had  thus  disturbed  the  har- 
mony  of  the  church,  and  sown  the 
seeds  of  contention  and  strife  among 
them,  as  fellow  laborers  with  him  in 
the  gospel,  or  does  he  severely  con- 
demn  them,  and  charge  them  as  min- 
isters of  Satan  ?" — lb. 

"For  such  there  may  be  mercy; 
but  it  is  no  where  revealed."  Vin- 
die,  pa.  31. 

Here  then  we  have  a  fair  view  of  this  christian  bishop's  opinions 
respecting  non-episcopalians  and  the  heathen.  For  the  former, 
there  may  be  mercy,  but  it  is  not  revealed;  and  concerning  their 
state  he  can  say  nothing,  because  he  knows  nothing;  but  respecting 
the  latter  he  doubts  not  of  the  salvation  of  many  !  Whence  this 
caution  on  the  one  side;  and  this  confidence  on  the  other?  Surely 
bishop  R.  does  not  pretend  that  mercy  bus  been  revealed  and 
promised  to  the  heathen,  while  there  is  nothing  promised  to  poor 
dissenters!  This,  gentle  reader,  is  the  man  who  on  pa.  32,  of  his 
Vindication,  sneers  at  christians,  who,  he  says,  "  profess  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  the  secret  decrees  of  Ahi.ighty  God."  By  the  way, 
they  profess  no  such  thing.  But  how  far  is  bishop  R.  from  making 
this  profession,  when  he  doubts  not  about  the  heathen? 

But  there  have  been,  and  there  are,  in  the  world,  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  professing  christians,  who  with  all  their  heart  sub- 
scribe to  the  c/ocirjna/ articles  of  the  Church  of  Ensjliuid — and  who 
differ  from  Episropalians,  only  as  to  the  matter  of  diocesan  bishops, 
and  some  points  of  external  administration: — They  have  their  min- 
isters, who  teach  the  very  doctrines  embodied  in  the  39  Articles: 
They  have  their  sacraments,  as  signs  and  seals  of  the  same  righte- 
ousness of  faith,  by  which  Episcopalians  hope  to  be  justitied:-- 
They  exercise  the  same  repentance  towards  God;  the  same  faith 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  the  same  love  to  God  and  man;— They 


Jieview  &f  Bishep  Ravemerqfl's  Vindication  and  Defence.  169 

have  the  same  hope;  rely  on  the  same  promises;  prize  the  same 
Bible;  pray  for  the  same  blessings — Yet  because  they  are  separated 
from  Episcopalians  by  mere  matters  of  order,  they  have  no  war- 
ranted hope  in  any  promised  mercy,  they  mat/  be  saved.  But  it  is 
uncertain.  But  as  for  the  heathen,  bishop  R.  knows  so  much  of 
what  has  never  been  revealed,  as  to  have  no  doubt  of  the  salvation 
of  many!  If  men's  words  indicate  their  opinions,  then,  we  may 
fairly  conclude  that  he  reckons  dissenters  to  be  in  a  worse  condi- 
tion than  the  heathen  !  The  heathen  in  their  idolatry,  more  likely 
to  become  holy  men,  than  dissenters  with  the  Bible  ! — Monstrous  ! 

We  would  ask,  however,  how  are  the  heathen  saved?  The 
xviiith  article  above  quoted,  pronounces  an  anathema  on  all  who 
hold  that  men  can  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  they  profess; 
or  in  any  way  but  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  scriptural 
truth,  for  "  There  is  none  orher  name  given  under  heaven  among 
men,  whereby  they  must  be  saved."  In  the  economy  of  redemp- 
tion, then,  is  not  Christ  the  Head  and  representative  of  those  who 
are  savt  d  by  him — is  he  not  the  second  Adam?  Are  not  all  made 
alive  in  Christ,  as  all  died  in  Adam?  Do  any  but  covenanted  mer- 
cies, then,  flow  to  the  children  of  men?  As  for  ourselves,  we  be- 
lieve that  there  is  a  relation  existing  between  Christ  and  the  whole 
human  family;  and  that  in  consequence  of  this  relationship,  every 
blessing,  whether  spiritual  or  temporal,  which  man  has  ever  en- 
joyed since  the  fall  of  Adam,  has  been  granted  to  him.  We  have 
no  idea  of  uncovenanted  mercies  extended  to  any  of  our  sinful 
race.  As  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  we  say  nothing.  Except 
that  they  can  only  be  saved  through  Christ — None  can  go  to  hea- 
ven unless  they  are  made  holy.  Truth  is  the  instrument  of  sanc- 
tification;  and  faith  the  way  of  applying  the  merit  of  Christ.  And 
there  we  leave  this  matter.  But  it  is  with  the  conviction  that  the 
Bible  may  be  a  great  blessing  to  the  heathen — and  that  Christians^ 
as  they  can,  ought  to  send  it. 

But  it  is  time  to  return  to  our  subject.  The  reasons  advanced 
by  the  bishop  to  show,  that  the  Bible  Society  encourages  schism 
and  heresy  and  division  without  end,  so  entirely  rest  on  assump- 
tions which  we  have  shown  to  have  no  foundation,  that  even  a 
child  might  detect  the  lallacy  of  his  logic. 

We  are  almost  ashamed  of  having  spent  so  much  time  in  coming  to 
the  conclusion  to  which  all  our  preceding  remarks  conduct  us — 
Therefore  the  Bible  Society  does  not  tend  to  the  subversion  of  re- 
vealed religion.  It  would  have  been  much  easier  for  us  to  have 
adverted  to  a  number  of  incontesfible  facts  to  refute  the  grand  ob- 
jection of  the  bishop  against  the  Bible  Society.  Facts  are  the  best 
reasons  in  the  wo-ld.  We  are  truly  sorry  that  our  bishop  did  not 
resort  to  them,  rather  than  try  his  hand  at  sylloijisms.  They  might 
have  brought  him  to  conclusions  very  ditferent  from  those  which  he 
has  formed.  We  beg  leave  to  state  a  few  as  arguments  against  the 
position  that  the  Bible  Society  tends  to  the  subversion  of  all  re- 
vealed religion. 

1.  All  the  discordant  opinions  and  divisions,  schisms  and  heresies, 
which  now  exist;  were  in  existence  before  the  organization  of  the 
Bible  Society.     We  do  not  know  any  exception,  but  that  of  a  schism 


iro  Review  of  Bishop  JtaveuscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence, 

effected  within  the  bishop's  diocese,  by  a  strange  set  of  people 
calling  themselves  Reformed  Baptists.  These  people  are  in  deadly 
hostility  to  the  Bible  Society.  Shall  we  congratulate  the  bishop 
on  this  new  ally? — Perhups  here  is  the  fruit  of  his  labor  in  writing 
his  Vindication!  This  schism  then,  as  well  as  all  the  rest,  cannot 
be  attributed  to  the  Bible  Society. 

2.  It  is  well  known  that  the  darkest  period  in  the  church,  from 
the  era  of  the  Reformation  to  the  present  day,  was'that  which  oc- 
curred between  1780,  and  1804.  In  popish  countries,  infidelity 
was  triumphant.  In  protestant  lands,  it  was  bold  and  daring;  while 
piety  was  very  low,  zeal  was  cold,  and  what  was  then  misnamed  ra- 
tional  religion,  was  rapidly  gaining  ground  both  in  established 
churches,  and  among  dissenters.  The  Bible  Society  has  no  blame 
to  bear  on  account  of  these  wide  spread  and  desolating  evils. 

In  the  midst  of  their  prevalence,  it  appeared  to  the  best  and 
wisest  men,  who  bore  the  christian  name,  that  something  must  be 
done  to  honor  the  Bible  and  sustain  the  cause  of  Christ,  to  stem 
the  torrent  of  infidelity  and  save  a  sinking  church.  Among  other 
enterprises  of  christian  benevolence; 

3.  The  Bible  Society  was  or-ianized.  This  was  done  in  the 
year  1804.  Some  years  previously  to  this,  a  Society  was  estab- 
lished on  precisehj  the  same  principle,  for  the  benefit  of  the  soldiers 
and  seamen  of  Great  Britain,  of  which  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury was  the  head.  The  very  men  in  the  church  of  England 
whose  piety,  zeal,  talents,  and  virtues  have  done  most  to  redeem 
her  from  the  character  of  a  mere  secular  establishment,  were  the 
most  active  and  decided  friends  of  the  New  Society.  We  mention 
first,  the  late  Right  Reverend  Bielby  Porteus,  bishop  of  London — 
a  man  whose  name  is  never  to  be  mentioned  without  a  note  of 
honor  ; — then  the  two  Milners,  a  noble  pair  of  brotl)ers — Simeon, 
Cecil.  Scott,  Cooper,  Dealtry,  and  many  more.  —  This  Society  has 
been  in  operation  in  England  now  twenty-two  years  and  upwards. 
It  has  extended  into  almost  every  country,  in  Europe,  except  Spain 
and  Portugal;  and  ought  before  this  time  to  have  produced,  in  part, 
its  appropriate  effects. 

4.  There  has  been  a  revival  of  the  Episcopal  church  in  the 
United  States.  There  has  been  a  great  increase  of  [iiety  and  zeal 
in  England.  The  same  is  reported  of  Scotland.  In  France,  where 
the  protestant  churches  had  lost  even  tbe  appearance  of  vital  piety, 
there  are  hopeful  signs  of  revival.  In  Germany  and  Prussia  where 
the  lowest  forms  of  Socinianism,  and  even  undisguised  Deism  had 
corrupted  the  very  ministers  of  religion,  there  are  some  prospects 
of  a  return  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.  A  new  light  has 
been  kindled  at  Geneva.  There  is  a  wakening  np  of  a  spirit  of 
piety. — In  a  vvord,  infidelity  has  been  checked,  greater  honor  has 
been  put  on  the  word  of  God,  greater  efforts  have  been  made  to 
raise  up  ministers  of  religion,  more  missionaries  have  been  sent 
abroad,  means  of  promoting  christian  knov%  ledge  have  been  accu- 
mulated. Episcopalians  have  loved  their  church  as  much,  and  Dis- 
senters their  Bible  more. — Truly  it  is  marvellous  enough,  that  a 
principle  "  demonstrably  subversive  of  all  revealed  religion" 
i^hould  have  been  in  active  operation  more  than  twenty  years,  and 


Review  of  Bishop  ISavenscrojVs  Vindicaiion  and  Defence.  \7i. 

that  opposite  effects,  should  have  been  produced  ;dl  the  time!  f ndee J 
the  Bible  Society  is  surprisingly  slow  in  exerting  its  destructive  en- 
ergies, especially  as  the  organ  of  destructiveness  was  fully  devel- 
oped at  the  very  birth  of  the  institution.  "■  This  no  comment 
principle,  this  crusade  ag.unst  revealed  religion,"  (as  the  bishop 
with  beautiful  metaphorical  contusion  terms  it)  after  all  turns  out 
to  be  very  harmless. — Harndess!  This  Society  is  carrying  on  a 
holy  warfare  against  tlie  powers  of  darUnnss;  is  doing  its  part  in 
that  enterprise  of  love,  which,  as  tar  as  facts  go  to  warrant  a  con- 
clusion, will  result  in  making  tho  saving  health  of  the  Almighty 
known  to  all  nationse.  Facts  ought  to  make  this  most  contident  of 
reasoners,  suspect  the  soundness  of  his  logic. 

But  our  Anti-biblist  has  not  told  us  distinctly  what  he  would  have, 
in  place  of  t!ie  Bible  Society.  We  know,  indeed,  that  he  would 
have  all  Episcopalians  to  unite,  as  with  one  heart,  in  sending  the 
Bible,  Church,  Ministry  and  Sacraments,  to  the  destitute.  Very 
well!  But  what  shall  non-episcopalians  do?  Love  the  Bible  so 
much  as  to  labor  to  promote  epis«opacy,  which  they  cannot  find  in 
the  Bible?  This  is  a  compliment,  which  they  would  be  as  unwilling 
to  receive,  as  the  bishop  would  be  to  give.  It  would  be  the  height 
of  cruelty  to  sit  still  and  wait,  until  Episcopalians  could  send  the 
Bible,  vvith  the  Church,  Ministr)!  an<l  Sacraments,  to  all  the  world; 
and  the  height  of  extravagance  to  expect,  that  the  great  body  of 
Protestants  will  give  up  those  principles,  which  they  have  consci- 
entiously derived  from  the  word  ot  God,  and  go  over  to  compara- 
tively a  s  nail  party,  who  have  separated  themselves  from  the  com- 
munion of  their  Protestant  brethren.  Well  what  is  to  be  done.' 
Why,  as  Episcopalians  have  united,  (we  suppose  on  bishop  R.'s 
plan)  so  Presbyterians  would  unite,  and  Methodists,  and  Baptists, 
and  Congregationalists,  &,c.  &c. :  And  the  world  would  see  as  many 
different  societies  formed  to  send  Bible,  Church,  Ministry  and  Sa- 
craments to  the  destitute,  as  there  are  denominations  in  the  chris- 
tian  world.  And  as  these  different  associations  would  be  formed  on 
the  express  principle  of  proselytism,  what  a  great  "scramble" 
there  would  be!  Whether  it  would  be  honorable,  let  our  bishop 
judge.  The  effect  of  a  plan,  such  as  we  suppose  that  of  our  Anti- 
biblisl  must  be,  would  be  wonderfully  striking,  and  doubtless  over- 
whelming to  Deists,  Turks,  and  Hindoos.  Every  distinct  society, 
adopting  the  bishop's  principle,  must  send  out  comments.  We 
should  then  have  Lutherans,  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Baptists, 
Methodists,  Quakers,  Universalists,  Unitarians,  Swedenbergians, 
Shakers,  &c.  &c.  all  rusliingout  loaded  with  comments.  The  Epis- 
copalian would  say,  here  take  my  Bible — Mant  and  D^Oyley  will 
make  all  as  plain  as  the  Catechism;  the  Presbyterian  would  cry 
out,  no!  Henry  is  the  man  to  teach  you  the  whole  truth;  the  Me- 
thodist vvouhl  bring  Adam  Clarke;  the  Baptist  Gi7/'s  Commentary, 
in  nine  quartos;  the  Quaker  would  thrust  in  Barclay's  Apology;  the 
Shaker  would  push  it  aside  by  a  copy  of  "the  Millennial  Church;'' 
and  the  Unitarian  would  wag  along  with  his  wheel-barrow  load  of 
the  Fratres  Poloni— And  surely  unbelievers  of  every  form  must  be 
convinced  and  converted!  The  missionaries,  too,  of  each  sect,  sent 
forth  to  defend  and  propagate  "opposite  systems  of  religious  belief,' 


17.2  Heview  of  Bishop  Uaveuscrofi*s  Viiidicati§u  and  Bejend. 

\\'o\x\'\  have  a  sort  of  glatliator's  combat  wherever  they  might  meet; 
for  the  confutation  of  the  enemies  of  the  christian  faith.  Such  must 
be  the  results  of  bishop  R.'s  phm,  carried  out  fully — unless  he  with 
the  aid  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis  could  succeed,  and  produce,  what 
never  has  yet  been  accomplislied,  uniformity  in  religion. — We  think 
it  mii^ht  be  gr.nted  to  us,  as  Mr  Law  says,  that  this  is  not  the  best 
way  to  promote  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer. 

Before  we  leave  this  important  subject,  there  are  several  parti- 
culars demanding  our  notice,  which  we  could  not  bring  under  any 
of  the  heads  of  argument  previously  considered;  and  therefore  must 
take  them  up  separately. 

The  first  occurs  pa.  89.  We  advert  to  it,  because  it  is  connected 
with  a  considerable  number  of  those  personalities,  which  so  much 
disfigure  the  bisliop's  book.     Our  Reviewer  had  said, 

«*  Now  while  the  hearts  of  millions,  are  rejoicing  in  this  "  era  of  good 
feelings,"  and  thanking  God  ttiat  sectarian  coldness  is  warmed  and  melted 
by  this  new  display  of  fraternal  love  ;  we  hear  this  Bishop  and  the  other,  in- 
terposing and  saying,  no,  we  cannot  unite  with  you,  unless  you  will  join  the 
IJook  of  Common  Prayer  with  the  Bible  !  unless  you  all  become  Episcopa- 
lians and  join  with  us,  we  cannot  have  any  connexion  with  such  Societies." 

On  this  Bishop  Ravenscroft  allows  himself  to  speak  thus, 

"  And  pray  sir,  is  this  the  objection  taken  in  my  Sermon  to  the  Bible  So- 
ciety principle  ?  Is  the  separation  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  from  the 
Bible,  in  its  distribution,  given  as  the  reason  why  I  cannot  warm  myself  at 
this  genial  source  of  sectarian  fervor  ?  Or  is  this  one  of  Dr  Rice's  charitable 
fabrications,  to  catch  his  readers  ?  Certainly  sir,  I  am  free  to  acknowledge, 
for  myself,  that  Christ's  Religion  forbids  me  to  have  fellowship  with,  or  to 
countenance  in  any  way,  either  men  or  measures,  which  I  conscientiously 
believe  to  be  Injvuious  to  the  interests  of  revealed  religion,  even  if  that  in- 
jury shall  proceed  from  well  meant,  but  mistaken  intention  to  serve  it.  But 
I  cannot  allow  you,  or  any  other  person,  to  attribute  motives  to  my  conduct, 
without  contradiction,  which  are  notoriously  false,  as  is  the  case  in  the  pre- 
sent instance." 

In  relation  to  the  same  subject,  the  writer  uses  the  words  "bare- 
faced perversion,"  "false  and  unfounded  statement,"  "wilful  per- 
version," and  similar  expressions.     See  pp.  9,  10. 

Let  our  readers  consider  what  we  say,  in  the  following  remarks. — 
It  is  undeniable  that,  when  bishop  R.  says  the  Church,  he  means  the 
Episcopal  Church;  and  that  when  he  refuses  to  acknowledge  us,  it 
is  because  we  are  non-episcopalians.  He  says  indeed,  that  it  is  be- 
cause we  hr>ve  not  derived  authority  from  Christ,  through  the  Apos- 
tles, by  a  verifiable  succession:  but  he  believes  this  because  we  are 
non-episcopalians;  for  he  is  sure  that  episcopalians  have  this  au- 
thority, while  no  others  have.  We  do  not  claim  to  be  ministers, 
and  administer  sacraments,  withoat  believing  and  proving  too,  that 
we  have  derived  just  as  much  authority  from  Christ  as  bishop  R. 
has.  But  we  support  our  claim  to  a  true  ministry,  and  verify  the 
Church,  in  a  manner  different  from  that  by  which  bishop  R.  does. 
He  affirms  that  episcopal  succession  is  indispensable  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  gospel  ministry,  and  that  this  succession  is  essential  to 
ihe  being  of  the  church.  We  hold  the  necessity  of  a  ministry,  but 
deny  that  it  is  necessarily  constituted  in  the  way  the  bishop  sup- 
poses.    We  always  admitted  hi-?  sincerity:  aud  never  charged  him- 


Jteviexv  of  Bishop  Jlavcuscrqft's  Vindication  and  Defence.  ITJ 

with  denouncing  all  non-episcopalians,  and  separating  from  them, 
on  what  he  acknowledges  to  be  mere  matters  of  form  and  outward 
observance.  But  while  we  admit  his  sincerity,  we  think  that  we  have 
shewn  his  error.  He  holds  that  to  be  essential,  which  is  not  essential. 
And  our  charge  against  him  amounted  just  to  this,  that  he  allowed 
himself  to  be  so  blinded  by  sectarian  feelings,  that  his  mind,  natu- 
rally acute  and  vigorous,  could  not  see,  in  a  case  so  plain,  the  dif- 
ference between  essential  truths,  and  matters  which  we,  in  common 
with  millions  of  others,  hold  to  be  non-essential.  And  in  this  case, 
this  is  the  head  and  front  of  our  offending. 

In  the  next  place,  in  regard  to  the  book  of  Common  Prayer,  the 
separation  of  which  from  the  Bible  we  assigned  as  a  reason  why  bi- 
shop R.  opposed  the  Bible  Society,  we  have  several  things  to  say. 
But  be  it  observed,  that  heretofore,  whenever  we  have  spoken  se- 
verely or  lightly  of  bishop  R.  it  was  in  his  character  as  an  author. 
Personall}',  we  meant  to  treat  him  with  respect.  Now,  we  address 
him  as  a  man,  and  call  on  him  before  his  God,  and  tlie  christian 
community,  to  say,  whether,  if  the  Bible  Society  of  America  and 
that  of  Great  Britain,  with  all  their  auxiliaries,  had  been  formed 
for  the  sole,  unalterable  purpose  of  distributing  the  Bible  and  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  this  would  not  have  prevented  all  his 
objections  to  the  Institution?  We  verily  believe  that  it  would.  '  We 
have  paid  some  attention  to  the  controversy;  and  we  cannot  doubt 
that  every  Episcopalian,  who  has  taken  a  part  in  it,  both  in  this 
country  and  in  Europe,  would  have  hailed  this  Union  of  individuals 
of  so  many  denominations,  in  the  distribution  of  the  Prayer  Boole 
with  the  Bible,  as  the  greatest  triumph  which  the  Episcopal  church 
ever  enjoyed.  And  this,  on  the  expectation  that  the  various  de- 
nominations were  in  a  fair  way  to  become  united  with  the  Church. 
If  we  are  right  here,  how  "naughty"  was  bishop  R.  in  using  to- 
wards us  the  bitter  words,  which  we  have  quoted! 

But  farther:  it  is  not  easy  to  analyze  the  bishop's  words,  and  tell 
exactly  what  he  means  by  sending  "the  church,  ministry,  and  sa- 
craments with  the  Bible."  The  church  "is  a  company  of  faithful 
men" — How  was  that  to  be  sent?  The  ministry  means  either  the 
office  of  a  gospel  minister,  or  the  body  of  ministers  in  general. 
The  sacraments  are,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  These  must 
all  be  sent.  Well,  we  wishing  to  put  the  best  meaning  we  could  on 
the  bishop's  language,  inquired  whether  he  did  not  intend,  that 
with  the  Bible,  men  should  be  sent  duly  authorized  to  organize 
churches,  and  administer  sacraments?  To  this  we  found  only  one 
objection,  but  a  formidable  one.  It  may  be  thus  stated  as  it  passed 
•through  our  minds.  There  are  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  about 
twenty-two  millions  of  souls,  and  ten  thousand  Episcopal  clergy- 
men. In  the  United  States  the  population  is  twelve  millions,  and 
about  three  hundred  i)reachers  of  this  denomination.  There  are 
very  few  in  all  the  world  besides,  except  Roman  Catholics.  Let 
the  population  of  the  world  be  stated  at  nine  hundred  millions. 
Then  duly  authorized  Protestant  clergymen  are  to  be  provided  for 
about  eight  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  souls.  It  would  require 
more  than  a  thousand  years  to  afford  this  supply,  at  the  rate  of  a 
thousand  additional  clergymen  a  year,    But  let  us  take  our  own  coun^ 


174  Heview  of  Bishop  Jtavevscroft^s  Vindicalion  and  Defence. 

(ry.  The  population  is  doubling  tvory  iwofity-five  j^enrg.  There 
are  srarcel}'  ar.-one  "?,  then,  (/;<///  authorized  dergymen  enough  to  tra- 
vel through  tins  wnle  retii.::'  i-s;)  b  tptizR  the  chilflren  ;v-  f:!st  ■\^.  Uiey 
are  born  ;  even  should  they  do  nothinjf  else.  i'he  jjopulation  is  so 
far  ahead  of  the  number  of  Episropal  rlprgymen,  that  age?  and 
ages  must  elapse,  before  the  rniinsl  y  ran  bp  sent  with  the  word. 
Multitudes  nisj'-t  die  heatb(^ns,  and  multitudes  more  in  a  state,  which 
it  now  appears,  bishop  R.  thinks  more  dangt^rous  than  heathenism. 
But  when,  formerly,  we  had  to  determine.  ;is  well  as  we  could, 
what  I.e  meant,  *ve  could  not  possibly  brinji  ourselves  to  believe, 
or  ad  it  for  a  moment,  that  he  bad  sorb  thmmhts  respecting  the 
Bible,  and  its  value  to  a  lo>i  world,  as  to  wi-h  that  the  millions  and 
millions,  who  have  no  access  (.  the  word  of  liie.  should  remain  so, 
until  Episcopal  ministers  could  be  rais.d  up.  and  sent  to  them. — 
This  tbougbt  ocnrred  again  and  attain  to  oin  m  nils,  but  we  rejected 
it.  We  did  suppose  it  ti  be  an  act  bi)tli  ot  kindn.'s>  and  ol  justice, 
then,  o  conclude,  that  by  sending  the  church,  ministry  and  sacra- 
ments, the  bishop  me.uh  sending  surh  "notes  and  comments" 
(he  himself  uses  the  terms  interchangeably)  with  the  Bible,  as 
would  enable  the  people  to  understand  the  nature  and  form  of 
the  church,  the  true  character  of  the  ministry,  the  vi'ae  and 
efficacy  of  the  sacraments,  so  tliat  when  stirred  up  to  seek  the  sal- 
yation  of  their  souls,  they  would  unite  themselves  with  the  Epis- 
copal church.  That  Episcopalians  sincerely  and  honestly  think 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  excellently  adapted  to  this  end,  we 
have  no  manner  of  doubt.  Indeed  it  is  set  forth  for  the  very  pur- 
pose (in  part)  of  giving  instruction  as  to  the  true  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  in  relation  to  the  church,  ministry,  and  sacraments.  But 
thousands  and  thousands  of  copies  of  tlie  Common  Prayer  can  be 
printed  and  distributed,  while  one  man  is  bein_  trained  for  the  min- 
istry of  the  gospel.  The  case  then  was  this:  we  must  either  say 
that  bishop  R.  means  to  destroy  the  Bible  Society,  and  let  the  world 
wait  for  the  slow  growth  of  the  Episcopal  Church;  that  is,  he  must 
be  willing  that  millions  after  million>  should  die  without  any  of  the 
means  of  grace,  and  with  no  prospect  of  a  supply  but  in  the  tardy 
incriase  of  the  Episcopal  Chur(  h  :  or  be  means  to  send  with  the 
Bible,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  which  embodies  in  his  judg- 
ment, the  true  doctrine  of  scriptuie  respecting  the  church,  ministry 
and  sacraments;  and  this  as  the  best  thing  that  can  br  done,  in  the 
present  state  of  the  church  and  the  worUI.  We  did  not  then  know 
how  favorably  the  bishop  thought  of  the  heathen;  nor  how  low  tvas 
his  opinion  respecting  the  Bilile  alone.  We  therefore  gave  that  in- 
terpretation to  loose,  indeterminate  lani;nage,  which  we  supposed 
did  most  justice  to  bishop  K.'s  character  for  zeal,  and  earnestness 
in  doing  good.  We  thought  the  case,  as  we  tried  to  understand  it, 
bad  enough  in  all  conscience.  But  the  other  is  incomparably  worse. 
Now  it  is  this  most  fivorable  construction  which  we  could  put  on 
the  bishop's  language,  which  has  called  forth  from  him  expressions, 
which  one  gentleman  never  uses  towards  another,  without  intending 

to  give  the  highest  possible  insTilt!     Let  bishop  R.  be    but  we 

leave  it  to  hi.-^  own  conscience  to  tell  him  what.      We  have  already 
said  how  we  feel  on  finding  that  we  had  greatly  "mistaken  our 


Sc'Oiew  of  Bishop  NavenscroJVs  VindicuHon  and  Defenee.  K  j 

man."  But  we  have  no  rijfht  to  objp<  I  to  bishop  R.'s  interpreting 
his  own  Imignajie  in  his  own  way,  and  making  his  cause  .i  ti.onsand 
fold  worse  than  we  ever  thought  of  making  it.  Be  it  known,  then, 
that  his  principles  lead  him  to  tliis — that  it  is  better  for  the  heathen 
to  continue  ,is  they  are,  than  for  thi^m  to  recfive  the  Bible  alone,  or 
christi  mity  in  the  form  in  vvhi(-fi  Dissenters  hold  it.  When  princi- 
ples I  ;id  Olio  to  such  conclusions,  is  it  not  higti  time  for  him  who 
holds  lii-m  to  *us>)(-ct  that  he  has  fallen  into  grievous  error? 

As  to  t!ie  v;i'iou>  other  personalities-,  whi  li  occur  in  this  work, 
we  cannot  notice  ttiem.  It  would  I>p  easy  for  us  to  go  one  hy  one 
through  them,  and  show  that  bishop  R.  charges  us  wrongfully,  but 
this  would  require  the  reader  to  travel  through  many  a  wearisome 
pa<re,  and  ifter  all  it  would  not  settle  the  points  of  controversy  be- 
tween us. 

In  defence  of  the  Bible  Society,  ive  had  said,  that  it  was  of  un- 
speakable import. ince.  that  the  whole  influence  of  the  Protestant 
world  should  be  f,.dt  by  Roman  Catholics,  M.ihomedans,  and  Pagans; 
and  that  it  was  better  that  the  people  should  have  the  Bible  with 
any  interj)!  eter-.  or  none  at  all,  thin  be  without  the  word  of  truth. 
Ou  this,  the  bishop  exj-i  esses  him^?lf  in  sucii  terms,  that  if  he  were 
not  a  bishop,  we  should  s;iy  he  raves.  He  calls  this  niDnstrous;  and 
represents  us  as  holding,  "that  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  the 
Bible  be  truly  or  filsely  interpreted."  We  only  mention  this  hewv- 
ever  for  the  sake  of  giving  another  specimen  of  our  author's  bad 
logic.  Our  meaning  plainly  is,  that  the  fundamental  truths  of  the 
Bibl^  are  so  clearly  revealed;  the  way  of  salvation  made  so  plain, 
that  whether  with  or  without  an  interpreter,  the  sincere  inquirer 
after  truth  will  not  mistake  them.  It  is  theiefore,  in  any  event, 
better  that  a  man  should  have  a  bible,  than  that  he  should  not  have 
it.  And  this  is  changed  into  a  declaration,  that  it  is  of  no  conse- 
quence whether  ri  man  derives  truth  or  error  from  the  Bible! 

Take  another  specimen  of  bad  logic.  VVe  had  said,  it  was  under- 
Stood,  that  e;ich  separate  denomination  might,  without  let  or  hin- 
'drance,  promote  Christianity  according  to  their  own  creeds  and  con- 
fesMons — meaning  thereby,  every  body  knows  that  all  denominations 
may  go  on  to  inomote  their  peculiar  opinions, just  as  though  the  Bi- 
ble Society  had  never  been  formed,  and  therefore  there  could  be 
no  reasonable  objection  to  their  uniting  to  di.«tribute  the  Bible,  the 
common  source  of  religious  truth.  On  this  bishop  R.  allows  himself 
to  say  (pa.  87.)  "It  is  understood,  that  is,  it  is  tacitly  agreed  upon, 
that  each  separate  denomination  is  to  find  no  let  or  hindrance  in  pro- 
moting Christianity  according  to  his  own  views."  Tacitly  agreed  on 
is  bishop  R's  ;loss  on  our  words.  We  do  not  pretend  that  in  this 
case,  he  wilfully  changed  our  meaning.  Far  be  that  irom  us.  But 
we  do  much  wonder,  that  he  knew  no  better.  If  there  were  no  Bi- 
ble Society,  all  denominations  would  promote  Christianity  in  their 
own  way;  and  no  one  lould  hinder  it.  The  Bible  Society  does  not 
change  this  state  of  things;  and  if  the  Bible  alone  is  really  a  good 
thing  wiiy  should  not  dl  the  people  in  the  world  have  it?  Will  the 
destruction  of  the  Bible  Society  cause  divisions  and  distractions  to 
cease?  Will  it  make  churchmen  and  dissenters  love  each  other  more? 
Will  Infidels  and  Pagans  then  have  no  cause  to  jeer  christians,  and 


17i3  Review  of  Bishop  llavenscroft's  Viiidicaiion^aml  Dejence. 

say,  "First  agree  among  yourselves  what  your  relijrion  is;  and  theu 
persuade  others  to  enmbrace  it?"  Will  Papists  no  longer  reproach 
Protestants  with  their  "Variations?"  We  repeat;  all  these  divis- 
ions existed  before  the  Bibh^  Society.  But  amidst  them,  one  point 
of  union  was  discovered.  Was  it  nothing  to  show  to  the  world,  that 
they  who  profess  to  derive  their  relij^ion  entirely  from  the  Bible, 
have  confidence  in  li>e  Bible?  Was  it  nothing  to  show  the  heathen 
that  there  is  christian  benevolence  enoujjh  to  "^end  them  that  book, 
which  is  able  to  make  men  wise  unto  salvation? 

We  maintained  in  our  former  Review,  that  our  principles  do  by 
no  means  nullify  t!ie  ministry  of  the  gospt;l,  and  thf  sacraments  of 
the  church.  .  "Bishop  R.  ende  u'ors  to  show  (pp.  07,  88.)  that  we 
are  inconsistent  vvith  ourselves:  and  on  pa.  91,  he  brmi;?  under  this 
charge,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Piesbyterian  Church,  and  an 
excellent  brother  of  ours,  the  Reverend  Dr  Miller,  of  the  Theolo- 
gical Seminary  in  Princeton. 

"Yet  Ur  Rice  cannot  but  know,  that  in  resorting'  to  this  trick,  indeed,  in  his 
entire  defence  of  the  Bible  Socii  )y  principle,  he  is  liable  to  be  cr^nfronted 
with  the  highest  authority  of  bis  own  tlenomination  (the  General  Assembly) 
in  favor  of  the  Westminster  Contessitin  of  Faith,  as  indispensable  to  a  right 
understanding  of  the  Bible;  and  also  with  the  recorded  opinion  of  a  brother 
Divine  and  Theological  Professor,  in  favor  of  creeds  and  confessions — in 
other  words,  expositions  and  comments  as  csscntiul  to  the  nnity  and  purity 
of  faith  in  the  church.  How  these  solemidy  considered  and  authoritative 
sentiments  of  his  own  church,  are  reconcilable  with  the  support  of  the  «no 
comment'  principle,  is  for  Dr  Hice  to  make  out ;  and  to  assist  him  in  this 
difficult  job.  Bishop  R.  refers  him  to  the  recantation  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1825,  of  the  sentiments  published  in  1824,  and  to  Dr  Miller's  l.etter 
on  Bible  Societies,  subsequent  to  his  published  Lecture  on  the  utility  of 
Creeds  and  Confessions." — p.  91. 

As  for  ourselves,  vve  only  say  a  sick  man  will  he  more  likely  to 
recover,  if  a  physician  perfectly  acqu.unted  with  his  case,  should 
send  him  medicine,  and  a  plainly  written  prescription.  But  this  is 
not  at  all  inconsistent  with  the  opinion,  that  the  sick  man  might 
do  much  better,  if  the  physician  could  visit  him,  examine  the  symp- 
toms, and  then  prescribe. 

As  for  the  General  Assembly — that  venerable  body  did.  in  the 
year  1824  give  a  testimony  in  favor  of  Creeds  and  Confessions. 
The  Assembly  of  the  following  year,  referred  to  that  testimony  as 
sufficiently  decisive,  without  the  repetition  of  similar  sentiments. 
To  call  this  a  recantation,  is  saying  that  an  affirmative  is  a  negative. 
But  in  the  Annual  Report  of  the  state  of  religion,  drawn  up  by  a 
committee,  and  adopted  by  the  Assembly,  we  find  the  following  dec- 
laration respecting  the  American  Bible  Society,  "i'lie  American 
Bible  Society  we  regard,  under  God,  as  the  glory  and  defence  of 
our  land.  We  share  in  its  blessini^s,  and,  in  our  measure,  in  its 
support.  As  will  be  seen  from  the  Report  of  its  operations  for  the 
last  year,  its  sphere  of  influence  has  been  constantly  enl.irging." 

"The  nature  of  the  service  in  which  it  is  employed,  and  the 
multiplied  testimonies  which  are  from  day  to  day  allorded  of  its 
vast  benefit  to  our  country  and  our  continent,  bespeak  a  presence 
in  it,  which  no  created  power  can  safely  resist." 

"To  oppose  this  institution  is  to  fight  against  God,  and  yet  we  have 
seen  intidels.,  and  half  reformed  protestanls,  uniting  with  the  papal 


Review  of  Bishop  JtavenscrojVs  Vindieaiion  and  Defence.  17  f 

Iliernrchy,  in  opposing  the  circulation  of  the  word  of  life,  as  though 
the  volume  which  Jehovah  has  adapted  to  the  constitution  of  man, 
and  sent  down  from  above  for  his  use,  and  made  efficient  if^  his 
redemption,  and  commaniled  to  be  given  unto  him,  could  not  with 
safety  be  committed  to  his  hands."  Perhaps  this  is  what  the  bishop 
calfs  n  recantation.  The  reverend  Dr  Miller  maintains  the  utility 
of  Creeds  and  Confessions  ;  and  is  a  warm  friend  of  the  Bible  So- 
ciety. Bishop  R.  thinks  this  a  great  inconsistency.  We  will  tell 
him  an  anecdote.  There  is  now  living,  we  hope,  a  clergyman  of 
the  Church  of  England,  nnmed  Simeon.  The  bishop  of  North  Ca- 
rolina has  no  doubt  heard  of  him.  Perhaps  he  owns  a  work  of  his 
commonly  called  Simeon  s  Skeletons.  It  is  intended  to  assist  preach- 
ers in  the  Composition  of  Sermons.  This  MrSimeon  delivered  at 
Cambridge,  some  years  ago,  and  afterwards  published  a  short  course 
of  sermons  on  "  The  Excellency  of  the  Liturgy  :"  This  is  thought 
quite  an  able  work.  But  when  he  came  to  publish,  the  Preface  of 
this  very  volume  contained  a  defence  of  the  Bible  Society — that  is, 
accorduig  to  Bishop  R.  Mr  Simeon  wrote  a  book  ;  and  theri  a  pre- 
face in  the  way  of  recantation  !  But  hOw  is  it,  that  the  bishop  can- 
not see  that  there  is  here  nothing  like  inconsistency.  Will  he  who 
thinks  that  he  knows  so  well  how  to  distinguish  things  that  differ, 
be  so  good  s^s  to  point  out  the  contradiction  between  the  following 
positions.  —  A  good  bed,  a  careful  nurse,  suitable  medicine,  and  a 
skilful  physician,  are  useful  and  necessary  for  a  sick  man. — Suitable 
medicuie,  with  the  prescription  of  a  skilful  iihysician,  are  useful  and 
necessary  for  a  sick  man  ?  The  positions  are  different,  because 
one  contains  more  than  the  other.  Bishop  R's  whole  reasoning  on 
this  subject  is  like  this — Bed,  nurse,  medicine  and  physician  are 
useful  and  necessary,  but  medicine  is  not  useful  or  necessary.  He 
says  a  thing,  and  then  contradicts  apart  of  it.  And  his  saying  amounts 
just  to  this.  If  a  physician  cannot  go  and  see  a  sick  man,  he  must 
not  send  him  medicine  and  a  prescription,  lest  he  fall  into  mistake, 
and  destroy  himself; — people  are  so  stupid  and  ignorant,  they  will  be 
as  apt  as  not  to  swallow  the  Spanish  flies,  and  make  a  plaster  of  the 
calomel  ;  and  therefore  they  must  be  left  to  themselves,  to  use 
their  own  quack  nostrums.  I  doubt  not  many  ofthem  will  recover; 
but  if  you  send  them  medicine  they  will  probably  die. 

Bishop  R.  thinks  it  "  a  pitiful  quibble — miserable  sophistry,"  to 
say  that  the  Bible  Society  was  not  formed  to  interpret  Scripture. 
We,  however,  have  such  confidence  in  the  intelligence  of  our  rea- 
ders, as  to  be  perfectly  willing  to  leave  this  matter  to  their  judg- 
ment. 

In  pages  91,  92,  93,  we  have  a  deatribe  on  christian  benevo- 
lence, which  we  do  not  think  it  wortli  while  to  notice  ;  as  our  rea- 
ders must  before  this  time  have  been  convinced,  that  they  could 
learn  nothing  on  that  subject  from  the  work  before  us. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  the  pamphlet,  bishop  R.  notices  three 
particulars  in  our  Review,  in  such  a  way  that  we  must  notice  them 
also, 

"The  first  is,  the  repeated  insinuation,  and  occasionally  the  direct  asser- 
tion,  that  the  doctrines  laid  down  in  my  Sermons  on  the  subjects  of  the 
Churcli  aMd  Ministry,  and  in  the  two  last  particularly,  are-of  a  character  too 
i  nearly  akin  tr  Popery,  to  suit  the  meridian  of  Protestant  America,'  " 


i'S  heview  of  Bhhop  Ravemcrqfl's  Vindicatpm  and  Defence. 

"  What  purpose  this  insinuation  is  intended  to  answer,  be-vond 
that  of  profiiiiifi  by  iMe  prejudice  it  may  serve  to  excite  and  con- 
tinue against  the  Episcopal  church,  you  bi'«t  know." — The  bishop 
here  again  reminds  us  of  the  anerdote  of  Diogenes,  before  rehited 
He  is  just  as  widfofthe  mark  as  Uf  well  cm  be.  On.  motives  are 
such  as  we  shall  nev*'r  lie  a-^hamed  to  avow  before  the  world.  We 
do  most  assuredly  bi'li<  v<  in, it  the  Episcopal  chiirc'ii  ;s  not  necessa- 
rily hij^h  church.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  no  doubt  that  high 
church  notions  have,  iioin  the  .lay-s  of  Land  until  the  present  time, 
been  injurious  to  its  b  A  intt-rest^.  And  allh  niiib  there  are  several 
things  in  its  forais  and  oii|«;-.  which  we  tl  ink  at  .  rianre  with  the 
Scriptures,  yet  we  believe  that  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Kefoi-.-na- 
tiou  are  eml>odied  in  its  Liturii;y  and  Ai  tiiles.  We  have  therefore 
loved  and  honored  it  as  a  bianrh  of  the  true  church,  and  have 
often  prayed  tor  its  purity  and  prosperity.  VVe  however  did  be- 
lieve, and  do  ye?  believe,  that  tb-'  opinions  which  prompted  bishop 
R.  and  others  t'>  oppose  the  Bil)l  ■  Society,  are  akin  to  Popery  :  that 
they  make  a  part  of  that  system  by  whi'h,  in  former  limes,  the 
church  was  corrupted,  until  it  ceMsd  to  be  a  true  cliur(  h,  and  be- 
came what  is  so  slrikina;ly  described  in  the  Homily  for  Whitsunday 
before  qi  oted.  But  really,  we  did  not  b»lieve  that  bisliop  R,  un- 
derstood his  own  pnofiples,  or  saw  tiieir  tendency.  We  therefore 
frankly  stated  our  views  ;  not  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  pi^-judices 
against  the  Episcopal  churcb — we  indignantly  repel  the  insinuation 
— but  for  the  purpose  of  ex'  iting  opposition  among  all,  Episcopa' 
Hans  as  well  as  others,  to  high  churct.  principles — and,  (delur  venia 
verbo)  not  without  some  hope  that  our  exhibition  might  startle 
bishop  K.  himself,  anfl  lead  hio)  to  reconsider  his  opinions.  So 
much  had  we  mist  iken  our  man!  But  have  we  also  mistaken  the 
real  character  of  the  Episcopal  church?  Does  bishop  R.  repre- 
sent it  truly  ?  If  "0  ;  tii^n  the  Episco});d  church  is.diin  to  Popery. 
We  place  the  matter  on  this  issue.  Do  Episcopalians  generally 
adopt  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  bishop  ;  and,  however  they 
may  condemn  the  spirit  in  whicli  his  book  is  written,  dc  they  think 
its  reasoning  "  unanswerable  ?"  Then  tiiey  do  generally  approxi- 
mate to  Popery.  But  we  no  more  believe,  that  oui  Ejiiscopal  bieth- 
ren  do  generally  adopt  these  high  church  notions,  tivan  we  doubt 
about  their  affinities,  and  tendencies.  Our  convictions  are  about 
the  same  on  each  side.  We  are  sure  thtt  high  church  has  a  near 
kindred  to  Popery  :  and  we  are  about  equally  sure  that  the  great 
body  oi  Episcopalians  in  the  United  States  are  low  churchmen  ; 
and  as  for  the  truly  pious  among  them,  we  verily  believe,  that  while 
their  hearts  are  with  us,  lliey  abstain  from  communion  with  other 
denominations,  solely  throngh  respect  tor  their  bishops  and  other 
clergy.  If  this  is  riot  so  now  ;  then,  by  some  secret  agencies,  a 
very  great  change  of  opinion  has  taken  place,  ivithin  the  last  twelve 
or  fifte.n  years. 

Our  Reviewer    had  said,    in   substance   that  bishop    R.    was  not 
alone  in  his  oppugnalion   to  the  Bible  Society,  that  bishops  in  Eng- 
land and  Scotland,   the  Pope  and  almost  all  the  Romish  bishops  in 
the  world  had  preceded  him  in  "  this  crusade"''  to  rescue  the  Bible 
''  Wc  thank  the  blsliop  for  teaching  us  that  word. 


Review  of  liishop  RavtnscrofV s  llndicaUon  and  Defence.  IT  J' 

Trom  the  abuses  of  Dissenters  and  Infidels  ;  and,  alluding  to  the  fact 
just  then  made  public,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  had  stimulated  the 
Grand  Seignor  to  issue  -a  firman  against  the  distribution  of  the  Bible 
iti  his  dominions,  the  Reviewer  added  that  the  head  of  the  Mahom- 
etan faith  was  almost  at  much  opposed  to  the  distribution  of  the 
Bible,  ai  any  Catholic  or  Protestant  bishop  can  be.  On  this  the  bish- 
op remarks, 

"  Now,  sir,. will  jou  be  pleased  to  come  forward,  and  point  out  any  Pro- 
testant Bishop,  either  in  Europe  or  America,  who  is  opposed  to  the  distri= 
bution  of  the  Bible.  For  this  you  must  do,  or  stand  convicted  of  fostering' 
prejudice,  at  the  expense  of  truth.  And  1  speak  thus  plain,  because  the 
case  is  of  that  sort  wliich  precludes  mistake,  as  to  the  fact.  You  have  said, 
'that  the  Grand  Seignor  is  almost  as  much  opposed  to  the  distribution  of  the 
Bible  in  his  dominions,  as  any  Catholic  or  Protestant  Bishop  can  be.'  Un- 
less, therefore,  you  can  shew  some  Protestant  Bishop,  who  is  opposed  to  the 
distribution  of  the  Bible,  as  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  are  opposed  to  it,  yoti 
are  justly  chargeable  as  a  false  accuser  of  the  brethren." — pa.  97. 

We  have  a  right  to  insist  that  our  words  should  be  construed  ac- 
cording to  the  establisherl  rules  of  interpretation.  We  had  all  along 
spoken  of  the  distribution  of  the  Bible,  on  the  pririt;iple  of  the  Bible 
Society,  without  note  or  comment.  We  never  dreamed  that  Pro- 
testants, Papists  or  Mahometans  would  oppose  the  distribution  of  the 
Bible  with  such  notes  and  comments  as  they  might  choose  to  send 
with  it.  VVe  said  over  and  over,  in  a  way  to  give  bishop  R.  mortal 
.offence,  but  really  without  intending  it,  that  he  was  willing  to  dis- 
tribute the  Bible  with  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Every  prin- 
ciple of  fair  construction,  then,  required  that  our  words  should  be 
taken  in  the  meaning  which  our  whole  usage  had  given  to  them. 
Every  unprejudiced  reader  will  see  at  once,  that  when  we  said  Pro- 
testants were  opposed  to  the  distribution  of  the  Bible,  we  meant 
"  without  note  or  comment."  That  is,  we  intended  to  state  a  fact, 
in  which  bishop  R.  glories  through  the  whole  of  his  work.  But  ha 
thinks  fit  to  represent  us  as  making  the  charge  absolutely.  Why  he 
should  do  this,  except  for  the  pleasure  of  resorting  to  "  the  coun- 
terpart quarrelsome,"  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  However 
this  may  be,  we  are  willing  to  take  him  on  his  own  ground — And 
we  now  affirm  that  he  is  opposed  to  the  distribution  of  the  Biblej 
"  as  Roman  Catholic  bi.sliops  are  opposed  to  it."  In  offering  our 
proof,  we  must  be  understood  as  speaking  of  the  avomed  reasons  of 
bishop  R.  and  Roman  Catholic  bishops. 

Bishop  R,  opposes  the  distribution  of  the  Bible  without  note  or 
comment.  But  Roman  Catholic  bishops  oppose  it  on  the  same 
ground.  Therefore  bishop  R.  is  opposed  to  the  distribution  of  the 
Bible  "  as  Roman  Catholics  are  opposed  to  it." 

Has  the  bishop  any  objection  to  this  syllogism  ?  Negatur  Minor. 
He  denies  the  position  respecting  the  Catholics.  To  the  proof  then. 
The  bishop  of  Rome  is  a  Roman  Catholic  bishop,  of  some  note  and 
authority  in  the  church.  A  Re.«cript  of  Pope  Fins  vii,  dated  April 
oth,  1820,  addressed  to  the  Vicars  Apostolic  of  Great  Britain  ;  con- 
tains the  following  exhortation  to  {he  faithf^il :  "  That  they  abstain 
from  the  reading  of  the  wicked  books,  in  which,  in  these  calamitous 
times,  our  holy  religion  is  on  all  sides  attacked;  and  that  they  should 
be  strengthened  in  faith  and  good  works,  by  the  reading  of  f\om 


180  Review  oj  Bishop  ItavcnscroJCs  Vindication  and  TJefeucc. 

books,  and  particularly  the  Holy  Scriptures,  in  editions,  ArpRoVEf 
BY  THE  CHURCH  ;  you  preceding  them  by  \vord~and  example." — 
The  following  are  the  original  words — Ut  a  perversorum  librorum 
icctione,  quibns  calamitosis  hisce  temporibus,  sancta  nostra  religio 
undique  impetitur,  al).stineant  ;  ut  piorum  librorum,  prcesertim  sac- 
raruin  scripturarum  lec'tione^  in  editionicus  ab  ecclesia  ArpROBA- 
Tis,  in  fide  et  in  bonis  operibus,  vobis  verbo  et  exemplo  praeeunti- 
bus,  confortentur.  But  what  sort  of  editions  are  approved  by  the 
church.  In  answer  to  this  question,  we  give  the  substance  of  the 
Title  of  a  New  Testam"nt  no  v  lyin;;;  on  our  table.  "Annotations 
on  the  New  Testamnnl  of  Jesus  Clirist,  in  which, 

1.  The  literal  sense  is  explained  accordmg  to  the  expositions  of 
the  ancient  Fathers. 

2.  The  false  interpretations,  both  of  the  ancient  and  modern  vvrit- 
er-i  which  are  cintrary  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  are  briefly  examined  and  disproved,  &Cv  By  R.  W.  D.D. 
With  permission  and  ap[)robations  This  work  was  once,  we 
knovv.  the  property  of  a  poor  Irish  Catholic.  It  was  intended  for 
general  use  ;  as  it  is  published  in  conformity  with  the  decision  of 
the  council  of  Trent.  Sess.  iv. 

The  scriptures  have  b.-eii  publislied  in  the  vernacular  tongue 
again  and  again,  by  Roman  Catholics. 

"It  is  a  common  mi^^tuke  :rriong  Protestants,  to  suppose  that  the 
Catholic  laity  .tre  df'barri  ,i  the  use  of  the  scriptures,  and  that 
the  Catholic  church  never  auUiDnzes  my  tran-l  iiioi,  of  ihem 
into  the  modern  languages."  Religious  World  Displayed.  By 
the  Rev.  Robert  Adam,  B.A.  Oxford,  ii,  82.  [Vhe  article  fiom 
which  this  extract  is  m;tde,  was  written  by  a  Roman  Catholic] 

It  is  undeniable  that  the  Roman  C  itholics  do  not  avow  opposi- 
tion to  the  circu! alion  of  the  scriptur.'S  with  such  notes  and  com- 
anents  as  the  church  approves.      They  avow  the  cor)trary. 

It  is  worth  while  to  consider  ihe  reasons  by  which  they  attempt 
to  justify  their  opposition  to  the  distribution  of  tlie  Edible  alone. 
The  following  extracts  copied  verbatim  from  some  of  the  most  res- 
pectable English  periodicals,  afford  some  very  curious  coinciden- 
ces. Hear  how  Roman  Catholics  speak  in  opposition  to  the  Bible 
Society. 

"The  general  perusal  of  the  Bible  without  any  interpretation 
iras  in  accordance,  perhaps,  with  the  desultory  and  capricious 
genius  of  the  protestant  reliiiion;  but  in  Ireland  there  existed  a 
creed  utterly  incompatible  with  the  wild  freedom  of  opinion  ;  and 
Tvhich  is  so  determinate  and  fixed,  as  to  leuve  no  field  for  the  exer- 
die  of  individual  jitdginenl  in  the  construction  of  the  word  of  God. 
The  Roman  Catholic  faitli  is  built  on  the  si;riptures,  as  explained 
hythe  church,  and  if  the  lower  classes  were  to  peruse  rhem  vvithout 
that  explanation  npon  which  their  religion  rests,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
they  would  contract  opinions  inconsistent  Toith  the  meaning  invaria- 
bly annexed  by  Roman  Catholics — by  the  chuuch  -to  the  holy  writ- 
ings—  The  whole  dispute  narrows  itself  into  a  question  of  fact.  Is 
it,  (the  circulation  of  the  scriptures  without  note  or  comment)  or 
is  not  iaconsisteut  with  the  spirit  of  Catholicism  ?  If  it  be,  there 
is  a|  end  of  the  argument:  at  least  it  must  be  admitted  that  Roman 


Hevicw  of  Bishop  RavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Defence.  181 

Catholics  arc  justified  in  their  strenuous  opposition  to  an  attempt  to 
subvert  their  religion  ? 

Another  speaker  against  the  Bible  Society  says,  "He  would  now 
ask  which  of  the  Bible  reading  gentlemen  agreed  in  their  faith  ? — 
He  did  not  believe  that  any  two  of  those  he  saw,  held  the  same  re- 
ligious opinion.  And,  alluding  to  the  Rev.  Mr  Noel  of  the  English 
Church,  and  Captain  Gordon,  who  was  a  presbyterian,  he  asks, 
"Did  the  young  English  gentleman  and  the  Scotch  Captain,  who 
came  here  as  missionaries,  hold  the  same  faith  ? — They  travelled, 
he  supposed,  in  a  post-chaise  to  overturn  the  Catholic  religion — 
How  did  these  post-chaise  companions  agree  on  religious  matters  ? 
Did  they  toss  up  for  religion  ?  Or  which  of  their  religious  tenets 
i3)ere  their  converts  to  embrace  ? 

Once  more  :  The  following  resolutions  were  drawn  up  by  a  dis- 
tinguished Roman  Catholic  priest,  to  be  adopted  by  an  Anti-Bible 
meeting. 

"Resolved  — That  it  appears   to  this  meeting — that  the  free  and' 
indiscriminate    circulation  of  the     Bible,  without    note  or    comment 
amongst  our  poor,  constitutes    the   basis  of  the  education,  sanctioned 
and  supported  by  the  London  Hibernian  Society." 

Resolved,  2dly,  That  we  consider  such  a  system  of  education 

CONTRARY  TO  THE  SACRED  SCRIPTURES,  PREJUDICIAL  TO  THE  INTER- 
ESTS OF  TRUE  RELIGION,  and  Subversive  of  all  order  in  civil  soci- 
ety.'' 

Resolved,  3dly,  That  as  good  and  sincere  christians,  and  as  loyal 
subjects,  we  will  resist  with  all  our  might,  the  establishment  of  such  a 
system  among  us,  because  we  are  convinced  that  it  would  substitute 
eventually  scepticism  and  infidelity  in  place  of  Christianity,  and 
anarchy  and  confusion  in  place  of  order  and  good  government.'" 

We  could  fill  page  after  page  with  matters  of  the  same  kind. 
But  this  is  enough.  Let  our  readers  compare  these  extracts,  with 
bishop  Ravenscroft's  reasonings,  and  judge  between  him  and  us. 
Is  it  "a  forced  and  false  construction,"  when  we  affirm  that  his  opin- 
ions are  akin  to  popery  ?  He  sincerely  believes  that  they  were 
"the  light  of  the  reformation" — But  in  fact  they  are  fundamental 
principles,  on  which  popery  built  its  usurpations.  And  his  old 
rule,  was  a  rule  adopted  when  the  man  of  sin  had  already  begun  his 
work. 

But  the  most  amusing  part  of  the  whole  work  under  Review,  is, 
that,  in  which  an  attempt  is  made  to  retort  on  the  Bible  Society 
the  charge  of  maintaining  errors  akin  to  Popery.  This  the  bishop 
is  pleased  to  do  in  the  words  "of  one  of  the  vestry  of  the  episcopal 
church,  Raleigh."  He  is  "exceeding  happy  to  inform  us — for  he 
feels  great  comfort  in  it — that  there  are  gentlemen  and  christians 
in  that  vestry,  to  whose  competent  judgment  we  might  safely  com- 
mit deeper  things  than  our  logic,  and  from  whom  even  we  might 
derive  an  accession  of  knowledge,  both  on  religious  and  other  sub- 
jects"— We  doubt  it  not — and  we  are  always  glad  to  learn  from 
such  as  are  able  to  instruct  us.     Let  us  hear  then, 

"The  Romanists  contend,  that  the  Scriptures  are  confided  exclusively  to 
the  clergy  ;  that  the  laity  are  to  receive  implicitly,  without  inquiry  or  ex- 
amination, -what  is  by  them  declared  to  be  the  trutli  of  these  Scrirtures- 


182  li&viexv  of  JSisliop  RavenscroJVs  i^'indicaliou  aad  Defeiia. 

To  the  people  they  give  the  Church  and  the  Ministry,  but  retain  for  thenn- 
selves  the  Scriptures.  They  therel)y  separate  the  former  from  the  latter, 
and  deny  the  people  at  large  one  of  the  most  efficient  means  of  grace. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  Bible  Society,  involved  in  the  rejection  of  comments 
*'that  the  scriptures  are  exclusively  sufficient,"  produces  a  like  separation 
%vith  that  of  the  Romanists  ;  the  difference  being,  that  the  former  give  to 
the  people,  the  scriptures  without  the  church,  wliile  the  latter  give  to  them, 
the  church  and  refuse  the  scriptures.  In  opposition  to  tlie  latter  error,  the 
reformers  and  standard  writers  of  the  Church,  contended,  because  it  was 
the  prominent  error  of  their  day.  In  opposition  to  the  former,  bishop  R. 
and  those  who  think  with  him,  contend,  because  it  is  tlie  prominent  error  of 
©ur  own  time.  The  bishop,  and  tiiose  who  tliink  with  him,  are  perfectly 
consistent  in  refusing  to  countenance  tliese  Bible  Societies;  because  they 
maintain,  that  all  the  institutions  of  God,  designed  as  means  of  conveying, 
and  giving  assurance  of  his  favor  to  fallen  man,  should  be  communicated  to 
the  people.  That  those  things  which  he  has  united,  should  never  be  separ- 
ated by  a  vain  confidence,  which  rushes  into  tiie  counsels  of  the  Must  High, 
and  acting  as  God,  profanely  elevates  one  of  his  institutions,  by  the  depres- 
sion of  another.  The  bishop,  and  other  opponents  of  the  principle  and 
practice  of  these  Bible  Societies,  unite,  in  condemning  all  separation  of  the 
means  of  grace,  one  from  the  other;  whether  devised  by  the  craft  of  Roman- 
ists, or  suggested  by  the  mistaken  liberality  of  the  Bible  Societies  ;  and  in 
affirming  that  the  Gospel,  as  one  in  its  doctrines,  order  and  ministrations, 
should  be  afforded  entire  to  the  people. 

"They  hold,  that  a  true  Church,  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preach- 
ed by  those  having  authority  thereto,  valid  administrations  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  the  scriptures  to  be  examined  and  read  by  all  who  can  read 
them,  are  together  the  sure  means,  prepared  by  divine  wisdom  for  our  salva- 
tion. That  in  their  union  there  is  safety  ,-  in  their  separation  there  is  daji' 
.^•er.  That  separation  of  the  one  from  the  other  is  erroneous,  whether  it  be 
made  by  Protestants  or  Romanists,  whether  it  be  the  result  of  designing 
policy  or  uninformed  benevolence — whether  it  be  a  corruption  of  the  dark 
ages,  which  benighted  Christianity  and  learning,  or  a  meteoric  error,  kindled 
into  a  blaze  in  our  own  day,  by  the  collision  of  different  elements  in  reli- 
gious belief,  chafing  themselves  in  an  attempt  at  unnatural  union." — pp.  99, 
100. 

Now  to  us,  this  appears,  for  all  the  world,  like  the  argument  of 
an  ingenious  and  acute  lawyer,  who  knows  that  he  has  a  bad  cause. 
If  so,  certainly  much  deeper  things  than  our  logic  may  be  commit- 
ted to  this  reasoner  ;  for  the  law  we  are  told  is  a  bottomless  pit. 
But  let  us  look  at  the  argument. 

1.  The  first  paragraph  contains  a  statement,  which  we  have  just 
shown  to  be  maccurate.  The  Romanists  profess  to  give  to  the  peo- 
ple "the  church  and  the  ministry,"  and  the  scriptures  with  their 
expositions,  their  notes  and  comments — and  in  this  high  churchmen 
are  like  them. 

2.  The  Romanists  profess  to  give  to  the  people  all  tltat  God  ever 
designed  for  them. — The  Bible  Society  professes  to  give  only  a 
part ;  because  they  can  give  no  more. — But  this  part  is  such  that 
it  may  well  lead  them  to  desire  and  seek  the  rest. 

3.  But  let  us  admit  that  the  Vestryman  states  his  case  accurately; 
and  that  the  Romanists  do  avowedly  debar  the  people  from  access 
to  the  scriptures,  entirely — then  the  case  is  this  :  They  say  to  the 
people,  we  give  you  the  church  and  the  ministry  ;  but  you  are  so 
ignorant  and  perverse,  you  shall  not  have  the  bible  lest  you  abuse 
it  to  your  destruction. 

The  Bible  Society  tays,  "As  the  word  of  God  contains  the  whole 
"Tnth  which  God  has  revealed  for  the  salvation  of  man,  in  terms  so 


Jteview  of  Bishop  JtavenscrojVs  Vindicalidn  and  Defence.  i83 

plain,  that  all  fundamental  truths  may  be  understood  by  all  men,  we 
give  you  the  bible.  And  as  in  the  present  divided  state  of  the 
christian  world,  we  cannot  bring  all  who  profess  the  christian  name 
to  unite  in  any  other  measure  of  charity,  we  send  you  the  Bible 
alone,  which  is  "sufficient  to  make  you  wise  unto  salvation." 

4.  The  church  is  a  society  formed  for  the  express  purpose  of  en- 
joying; the  ministry  and  sacraments  as  well  as  the  word  ;  and  with- 
holding any  part  of  tliese  privileges  is  defeating  the  very  purpose  of 
the  organization,  and  violating  the  express  coaimand  of  Christ.  But 
the  Bible  Society  is  a  company,  voluntarily  formed  under  the  gen- 
eral influence  of  the  law  of  love,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
church,  ministry,  and  sacraments.  fhe  Roman  church  then, 
which  is  bound  to  afford  all  the  means  of  grace,  says — here  is  a  gift 
of  God  which  the  people  ahall  not  have.  The  Bible  Society  says, 
— here  is  the  gift  of  God,  which  we  associated  for  the  purpose  of 
giving — as  for  the  rest  it  is  not  our  business  to  do  any  thing  with 
them.  Yet  the  Bible  Society  is  akin  to  popery ! — There  is  a 
famous  piece  of  reasoning  recorded  in  a  book,  which  perhaps  ever?/ 
body  has  not  seen,  we  therefore  copy  it  here. 

"If  you  look  in  the  maps  of  the  'orld.  you  shall  find,  in  the  com- 
parisons between  Macedon  and  Monmouth,  that  the  situations,  look 
you,  is  both  alike.  There  is  a  river  in  Macedon;  and  there  is  also, 
moreover,  a  river  at  Monmouth:  it  is  called  Wye  at  Monmouth, 
but  it  is  out  of  my  prains,  what  is  the  name  of  the  other  river;  but 
'tis  all  one;  'tis  so  like  as  my  lingers  is  to  fingers,  and  there  is  salm- 
ons in  both."  We  beg  pardon  of  Fluellen's  ghost — his  argument 
is  the  best  of  the  two.  There  is  o.  river  in  each  country,  and  there 
are  salmons  in  both.  But  the  Romanists  authoritrttively  take  away: 
while  the  Bible  Society  only  does  not  give.  The  Bible  Society  like 
the  church  of  Rome!      Indeed  this  is  deeper  than  our  Logic. 

But  in  the  next  place,  we  have  a  word  or  two  to  say  in  defence 
of  our  Reviewer,  and  the  American  bishops. 

Bishop  R.  had  written  and  published  these  words.  "I  have  no 
hesitation  in  asserting,  that  more  than  two,  perhaps  a  majority  of 
the  American  bishops,  are  not  in  favor  of  Bible  Societies,  on  the 
principle  adopted  by  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and 
copied  by  a  majority  of  those  in  this  country.  While,  of  those  who 
are  known  to  have  given  them  countenance,  reasons  and  motives  verj- 
different  from  those  of  sanctioning  such  principles,  have  operated  in 
inducing  them  to  have  any  connexion  with  such  societies,"  Now 
we  honestly  considered  this  a  very  unadvised  declaration.  It  did 
convey  to  our  minds,  an  unintentional  we  readily  admit,  but  severe 
and  very  undeserved  censure.  It  said  this — that  American  bishops 
acted  publicly,  before  the  world,  in  support  of  principles  which 
they  could  not  sanction.  It  was  said  by  a  bishop — we  know  in  the 
heat  of  controversy.  We  wished  that  in  cooler  moments  it  might 
be  reconsidered,  and  unsaid.  Regard  for  the  honor  of  the  christian 
ministry  made  us  earnestly  wish  it. 

Pudet  ha3c  opprobria  potuisse  dici  sed  non  potuisse  refelli.     For- 
this  purpose,  we  designed  to  let  bishop  R.  see  what  use  might  ea- 
sily be  made  of  his  unguarded  expressions — at  the  same  time  de- 
claring sincerely  our  opinion  that  reproaches  of  this  kind  would  be 


184  Review  oj  Bishop  ItavenscrqfV s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

unjust.  We  did  not  for  a  moment  suspect  that  bishop  R.  meant  any 
thing  derogatory  to  his  brethren.  But  ive  verily  thought  thai  in  his 
haste,  he  had  done  to  these  venerable  men  vvhiit  we  would  not  have 
done  for  the  world — impeached  their  sincerity.  Bishop  R.  could 
not  enter  into  our  motives;  he  could  not  conceive  of  any  thing  but 
hostility  in  one  who  o|)posed  his  peculiar  sentiments;  and  therefore 
in  that  tedious  paroxysm  o\'  vvliich  we  spoke  in  the  beginning,  he 
permits  himself  to  write  thus, 

"  Generous,  candid,  charitable  man  !  But  as  I  am  ahogether  unwilling  to 
bear  the  reproach  transferred  to  me,  as  the  writ<  r  of  the  Note,  I  will  just 
say,  that  so  far  is  it  from  being  the  plain  meaning  of  tlie  passage,  that  no  one 
would  have  made  this  use  of  it,  who  was  not  himself  capable  of  all  the  per- 
fidy  which  it  implies.  And  so  far  from  refraining  from  an  assault,  it  is  actually 
made,  and  in  that  way  too,  which  is  well  understood  to  be  most  effectual 
with  the  uninformed  and  the  prejudiced,  by  insinuation  ot  more  than  ap- 
pears ;  while  the  cunning  disclaimer  is  put  in  as  tlie  loop-hole  of  retreat. 
But,  sir,  it  shall  not  answer  your  purpose— for  I  am  happdy  able  to  free 
both  the  bishops  and  myself,  from  the  injurious  imputation  of  your  implied 
charge." — p.  101. 

We  quote  this  passage  that  our  readers  may  join  with  us  in  pity- 
ing and  praying  for  Bishop  Ruvenscroft. 

The  explanation  and  vindication  of  his  remarks  respecting  the 
bishops  who  are  connected  with  Bible  Societies,  so  f.r  from  being 
satisfactory,  makes  the  matter  worse.  "Reasons  (says  he,  p.  102) 
and  motives  perfectly  innocent  and  even  praiseworthy" — and  yet 
"very  different  from  those  (jf  sanctioning  such  principles"  present 
themselves  readily  to  every  ingenuous  mind:" — He  then  assigns  "the 
desire  to  conciliate — to  soften  the  asperities  of  religious  dissent,  by 
such  concessions  to  prejudice,  as  can  be  made  with  a  good  con- 
science"— and  "such  reasons  and  motives  as  these."  Now,  we  are 
not  satisfied  that  the  American  bishops,  connected  with  the  Bible 
Society,  should  rely  on  a  defence  as  lame  as  this.  Some  of  them 
are  zealous  in  its  support — are  presidents  of  societies  formed  on  the 
"no  comment  principle."  Now,  they  approve  the  principle,  or 
they  do  not.  If  they  approve  it — as  we  must  believe  they  do — they 
act  with  the  openness  and  sincerity  of  christians.  If  they  disapprove 
it; — surely  it  must  be  because  the  principle  injuriously  affects  the 
interests  of  religion.  Does  bishop  R.  mean  that  they  act  against  their 
real  sentiments,  on  such  a  subject  as  this,  to  conciliate?  Do  evil 
that  good  may  come?  Again,  we  sa}  ,  if  we  were  enemies,  what  oc- 
casion for  triumph  would  be  here.  But  nol  we  disclaim,  before  the 
norld,  our  belief  that  bishop  R.  has  stated  the  true  reasons  for  the 
conduct  of  the  prelates  in  question.  Otherwise,  what  should  we 
have  to  say  of  such  "scrambling  for  proselytes,"  as  this?  We  have 
a  right  to  say  farther,  that  all  Epis«  opalians,  who  continue  their 
connexion  with  the  Bible  Society,  do  not  think  the  bishop's  book 
•■'unanswerable."  He  has  not,  in  their  judgment;  proved  that  the 
Bible  Society  is  subversive  of  revealed  religion. 

We  have  not,  even  yet,  given  up  all  hope  that  bishop  R.  will  be 
a  friend  of  the  Bible  Society.  Our  readers  ina}  think  that  this  "is 
hoping  against  hope."  Among  our  reasons,  one  is  that  he  has  for- 
gotten how  far  he  was  friendly  to  the  Institution,  while  Rector  of 
St.  James's  parish  in  Mecklenburg.     He  states  the  case  thus. 


Ikvieiv  of  Bishop  Kavcmcrajt^s  Vindication  and  JJcfenee.  18j 

"The  Rev.  Mr  Treadway,  recently  ordained  a  Deacon  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  was  appointed  an  Assent  of  the  Virginia  Bihie  Society, 
at  the  instance  of  Bishop  Moore,  for  the  formation  of  Auxiliary  Societies. — 
Tn  this  capacity,  he  visited  my  then  parish,  and  was  received  by  me  with  all 
the  attention  due  to  his  clerical  character,  and  was  assisted  in  his  particular 
object,  so  far  as  introducing  him  to  the  people,  and  making  appointments 
for  him  to  preach,  and  explain  the  views  of  the  Society,  from  liie  respect 
due  to  my  Diocesan.  Mr  Treadvvay  having  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  suffi. 
cient  number  to  form  a  Society,  and  a  day  being  appointed  for  them  to  meet 
at  the  court-house,  and  being  hiiuself  obliged  to  visit  some  other  places  in 
the  interval,  he  requested  me  to  draw  up  a  constitution  and  rules  for  the 
regtdation  of  the  Society.  This  [  assented  to,  as  an  accon.niodation  to  him, 
and  performed  it  by  copying  a  printed  form,  which  1  found  among  some 
loose  pamphlets  in  my  study.  I  believe  also,  that  I  gave  a  dollar,  or  some 
small  contribution  to  the  Society — preached  an  extempore  Sermon,  to  a 
small  congregation  convened  on  an  appointment  made  for  Mr  Treadway, 
which  he  did  not  attend,  and  at  a  meeting  of  the  Society  to  elect  their  offi- 
cers, when  only  three  or  four  attended,  i  ad\  ised,  as  the  only  probable  means 
of  becoming  organized,  that  the  few  who  were  present  should  name  the 
officers,  and  notify  them  of  iheir  election.  The  plan  was  agreed  lo,  and  at 
the  icquest  of  those  piesent,  the  nomination  was  made  by  m\selt,  embrac- 
ing all  classes  of  religious  profession  m  ihe  count},  exctpi  Episcopalians — 
not  one  of  whom  was  nominated  to  any  office  in  the  Society  ;  having  previ- 
ously refused  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with  its  transactions  myself.  This  is 
the  whole  extent  of  ni)  intromissimis  with  the  formation  of  this  Auxiliary, 
or  any  otiier  Bible  Society." — p.  103. 

Now  we  have  not  the  lea^t  doubt  that  bishop  R.  made  this  state- 
ment according;  to  th*^  best  of  his  recollection.  Let  no  one  saj  that 
we  make  an  insinuation  to  the  rontrar}) .  But  the  record  of  the  case 
will  refresh  his  memory.      It  sp(?aks  thus, 

1.  The  foilo>uiiii  paper,  to  be  subscribed  by  any  who  might  be 
willing  to  unite  in  a  Bible  Society,  is  attributed  lo  the  Rector  of  St. 
James.  "  Unwillinsj  to  view  with  indifference  the  providential 
openina;s  for  the  reception  of  the  gospel  at  home  and  abioad,  and 
particularly  among  the  aborigines  of  our  country,  and  the  united  and 
mighty  efforts  making  in  the  promulgation  of  the  sacred  scriptures 
throughout  the  continent,  we  whose  naines  are  hereunto  affixed,  do 
agree  to  form  ourselves  into  an  association  to  be  denominated  the 
Mecklenburs;  Bible  Society,  whose  ?ole  ol)ject  shall  be  to  co-operate 
with  the  Bible  Society  of  Virginia  in  encouraging  a  wider  circula- 
tion ofthe  Holy  Scriptures."  Dated  Se[)t.  IGth,  1822.  The  first 
name  on  this  paper  is  that  of  7.  S.  Ravenscroft.  —  Here  is  betokened 
a  feeling  worthy  ofa  christian  mi.n!ster. 

2.  On  the  18th  of  Nov.  1822,  the  Constitution  ofthe  Society  was 
adopted,  by  a  meetins;.  of  vvhich  the  Rector  gave  notice,*  which  he 
attended,  and  at  uhich  he  preached.  The  second  Article  of  the 
Constitution  requires  that  the  ;opies  ofthe  Bible  shall  be  "in  every 
case  unaccompanied  with  either  note  or  comment."  And  the  13lh 
Article  provides  that  the  second  article  shall  be   "  unalterable." 

It  is  said  that  particular  stress  was  laid  on  the  words,  without  note 
or  cotnment. 

8.  At  this  meeting,  the  Rector  presided  ;  and  thirteen  managers 
were  chospn.  of  whom  seven  were  Episcopalians,  and  the  Rector 
was  one  ofthe  number. 

4.  On  the  31st  of  March  1823,  a  meeting  ofthe  Society  was  held 
at  Boydton,  and  the  Rev.  John  S.   Ravenscroft  attended.     At  this 

*  The  narticidars  about  the  notice,  kc.  are  of  course  not  in  the  Record, 


186  Review  nf  Bishop  JRavenscroft^s  Vindication  and  JJeJencc. 

time,  several  resolutions  of  some  importance  were  ndopted.  It  was 
resolved  that  quarterly  meetings  should  be  held — that  the  constitu- 
tion should  be  printed  and  distributed,  &c.  A  gentleman  of  the 
Episcopal  church  was  also  elected  Treasurer  of  the  Society,  who 
has,  it  is  understood,  performed  his  duty  faithfully. 

Bishop  R.  has  never  formally  withdrawn  from  this  Society.  And 
really,  the  Bishop  and  Rector  do  appear  to  have  held  contrary  sen- 
timents on  this  subject.  Did  be  always  believe  that  the  Bible  So- 
ciety principle  wtis  subversive  of  revealed  religion.  Did  respect  for 
his  "  Diocesan"  prompt  him,  in  the  least  degree,  to  encourage  a 
principle  of  such  ruinous  tendency  ?  Surely  a  Presbyter  is  not 
bound  to  yield  his  convictions^  in  this  way  to  his  bishop.  And  is  Dr 
Ravenscroft  a  man  thus  to  submit  his  understanding  and  his  consci- 
ence ?     Assuredly  he  is  not. 

But  bishop  R.  thinks,  that  if  an  alteration  in  opinion  had  taken 
place,  we  "•  might  have  considered,  that  as  the  bishop's  sphere  of 
observation,  is  necessarily  far  more  extensive  than  that  of  the  Rec- 
tor, and  his  means  of  ascertaining  the  effects  produced  by  such 
bodies,  much  more  ample,  he  had  doubtless  good  reasons  for  an  ac- 
tual change  both  of  opinion  and  conduct."  We  frankly  confess, 
that  the  opinion  did  cross  our  mind,  that  some  hozv  or  otiicr,  without 
the  gentleman's  being  at  all  conscious  of  it,  the  change  of  opinion 
,was  connected  with  the  change  in  otfice.  But  still  we  could  not 
attribute  it  to  the  causes  hinted  at  by  the  bishop.     For 

1.  The  change  was  rather  sudden  for  this.  In  1823,  the  Rector 
was  acting  manager  of  a  Bible  Society.  In  1824,  the  bishop  preach- 
ed his  famous  Sermon.  Now  his  new  office  ;  bis  removal  ;  the 
multiplied  and  arduous  duties  of  the  station  to  which  he  was  called, 
seem  to  us  to  have  been  quite  enough  to  occupy  his  whole  attention. 
But  this  is  not  all. 

2.  For  the  Bible  Society,  as  before  observed,  is  most  surprising- 
ly slow  in  accomplishing  its  work  of  (hvision  and  destruction.  Since 
its  organization,  there  has  certainly  been  a  great  increase  of  vital 
piety.  Infidelity  has  been  repressed.  Christians  have  been 
brought  into  much  greater  harmony  of  feeling.  All  the  facts,  then, 
both  in  Europe  and  America  were  agninst  the  bishop.  It  required 
much  more  time  for  observation  than  one  busy  year,  to  discover 
that  the  Bible  Society  tended  to  vndo  that  wluch  it  actually  was 
doing  with  a  mighty  and  uncontrollable  energy.  The  bishop,  even 
on  his  commanding  eminence,  could  not  possibly  see  "wljiitvvas  not 
to  be  seen."  But  it  often  happens,  that  a  sudden  elevation,  by  in- 
ducing giddiness,  makes  the  world  appear  to  be  whirling  round,  and 
every  thing  to  be  turning  topsy  turvy,  even  when  all  is  peaceful  and 
still,  except  i?i  one''s  own  sensorium. 

We  do  not  write  thus,  because  we  take  any  pleasure  in  exposing 
the  inconsistencies  of  our  author.  We  entered  this  sulyect  with 
great  reluctance  ;  and  have  found  it  very  unpleasant  at  every  step. 
But  we  were  impelled  by  a  sense  of  duty.  We  do  believe  that  the 
Bible  Society  is  connected  with  that  glorious  event  prayed  for  by 
every  pious  Episcopalian,  and  by  the  whole  church  indeed  every 
day — the  making  known  the  saving  health  of  the  gospel  to  all  nations. 
But  christians  in  the  United  States  have  not  been  roused  to  put 


lliv lew  of  Bishop  HavenscroJVs  Vindication  and  Bcfence.  isr 

forth  half  their  strength  in  this  cause  of  benevolence.  Many  are 
ready  enough  to  hold  back  for  any  excuse,  however  trivial.  Bish- 
op R.'s  name  and  office  gave  him  influence.  Me  has  injured  the 
Bible  cause.  His  opinions,  if  unchecked,  vvill  injure  it  still  more, 
as  the  Episcopal  church  extends  among  our  growing  population.  It' 
any  suppose  that  we  have  been  influenced  by  so  poor  a  motive  as 
personal  resentment  for  the  bitter  things  which  the  bishop  has  said 
against  us  ;  or  by  party  spirit,  they  do  us  crying  injustice.  Nothing 
but  public  considerations  of  most  imperative  character  have  impel- 
led us  through  the  drudgery  of  this  Review.  And  we  must  pursue 
our  work.  Before  heaven  we  utterly  disclaim  hostility  to  any 
christian  church.  But  to  do  justice  to  our  subject,  we  must  follow 
the  bishop  through  his  system.  It  hangs  all  together.  His  notions 
about  the  church,  the  ministry,  the  sacraments,  and  the  interpreta- 
tion of  scripture,  are  closely  connecteil  with  his  opposition  to  the 
Bible  Society.  And  whoever  thinks  with  him  on  these  points,  can- 
not consistently  be  a  cordial  friend  to  that  Society,  which  is  at  this 
moment  throwing  beams  of  heavenly  light  athwart  the  gloom  that 
has  been  deepening  foi-  a  thousand  years  ;  which  is  shedding  bless- 
ings on  fifteen  millions  of  Christians  groaning  under  Mahometan  bon- 
dage ;  and  is  pieparing  a  high  way  for  the  servants  of  God,  when 
they  go  to  carry  all  the  means  of  grace,  and  all  the  precious  privi^ 
leges  of  the  gospel  to  the  benighted  and  perishing  nations — We  feel 
that  we  are  pleading  the  cause  of  Charity  ;  and  doubt  not  that  our 
motives  will  one  day  be  fully  understood. 

INTERPRETATTON  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

In  this  part  of  his  book,  bishop  R.  undertakes  the  vindication  of 
Ills  sermon  on  the  interpretation  of  scripture.  This  is  a  subject  of 
great  importance — but  it  would  require  a  volume  to  treat  it  (ally. 
We  can  only  consider  general  principles. 

In  the  first  place  our  readers  ought  to  have  a  fair  state  of  the 
question.  Bishop  R.  holds  that  the  one  holy  apostolical  chur'h  is 
the  Episcopal  church  : — That  to  this  church  were  commi  ted  the 
Word,  Ministry  and  Sacraments — and  that  it  belongs  to  l-ns  church 
authoritatively  to  interpret  the  )vord  of  God.  Hence  he  concludes, 
that  it  is  unsafe — nay,  ruinous  to  distribute  the  Bible,  without  such 
notes  and  comments,  as  may  enable  the  reader  of  Scripture  to  de- 
termine the  sense  put  on  the  sacred  volume,  by  the  one  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  clear  that  the  great  object  of 
the  bishop,  in  his  sermon  on  the  interpretation  of  scripture,  is 
to  support  his  opinions  respecting  the  Bible  Society.  And,  as  our 
Reviewer  remarked,  in  his  several  successive  discourses,  he  devef- 
opes  his  system.  The  (Episcopal)  church  can  alone  so  inter- 
pret scripture  as  to  give  to  man  the  assurance  of  salvation.  The 
rule  of  interpretation  about  which  we  differ,  in  this  part  of  the  dis- 
cussion, is  derived  from  Vincentius  Lirensis,  a  writer  of  the  sixth 
century.  We  have  no  access  to  his  work;  but  the  bishop  lays  down 
the  rule  in  the  following  terms: 

^'■That  interpretation  of  scripture  is  to  befolloTSued  and  relied  vpon> 
US  the  true  sense  and  meaning,   which  has  invariably  been  held  avi 
mtcd  upon,  by  the  one  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  of  Christ." 
9A 


188  Ileview  of  Bishop  KaveiiscroJ't's   yindicatioti  and  Defence. 

Now  it  depencis  entirely  on  the  menning  attached  to  these  words 
by  bishop  R.,  whether  there  is  here  any  diflerence  of  opinion  be- 
tween him  and  us,  worth  farther  disputation.  If  he  means  to  say 
that  the  Apostles  of  Christ  taught  the  doctrine  of  their  master  so 
clearly,  that  their  disciples  understood  and  received  it;  and  that  the 
ascertaining  of  this  doctrine,  as  received,  settles  at  once  all  disputes 
concerning  it;  then  he  and  our  Reviewer  entirely  agree.  For  there 
is  nothing  wliich  we  more  certainly  hold,  than  that  there  are  no 
new  discoveries  on  the  subject  of  religion.  The  whole  plan  of  sal- 
Tation,  as  far  as  God  has  seen  fit  to  reveal  it,  was  fully  taught  by 
the  Apostles,  and  embodied  in  their  writings.  The  disciples  of  the 
Apostles  certainly  umierstood  their  meaning,  and  embraced  their 
doctrine.  The  point  here  is,  to  determine  what  this  doctrine  was. 
We  hold  that  this  is  most  easily  and  certainly  done  by  resorting  to 
the  scriptures.  For  there  we  have  tlie  truth,  expressed  in  the  very 
words  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  the  purpose  of  general  iii- 
Struction. 

It  is  true  that  we  have  brief  symbols  of  Faith  drawn  up  for  the 
Use  of  the  ancient  church,  going  under  the  name  of  Creeds,  as  the 
Apostles''  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  the  Athanasian  Creed. — 
And  these  show  with  certaiiity,  what  was  the  belief  of  the  Church, 
respecting  the  particular  articles  contained  in  those  formularies,  at 
the  time  when  they  were  adopted.  As  to  the  first,  we  do  not  know 
when  it  was  composed:  the  two  latter  were  drawn  up  in  the  fourth 
century.  But,  when  these  Creeds  are  applied  to  the  interpretation 
of  scripture,  their  character  is  chiefly  negative.  True,  it  may  be 
•affirmed  that  scripture  was,  in  general,  interpreted  in  conformity  to 
these  Creeds:  but  when  one  goes  to  a  particular  passage  of  scrip- 
ture, in  most  cases  it  can  only  be  affirmed  by  a  strict  reasoner,  that 
it  was  not  interpreted  in  opposition  to  the  Creed.  Now  one  may 
know  very  well  that  a  particular  meaning  was  not  attached  to  a 
text,  without  knowing  what  its  meaning  really  was  held  to  be. .  The 
Creeds,  too,  are  very  general  summaries  of  doctrine,  and  of  course 
there  are  hundreds  of  texts  to  which  they  cannot  be  made  to  apply. 
The  same  remarks  may,  in  substance,  be  applied  to  the  decrees  of 
Councils.  By  a  careful  examination  of  the  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
it  is  also  possible,  in  many  cases,  to  determine  what  opinion  they 
held  concerning  the  doctrines  brought  into  discussion  by  them. — 
This,  indeed,  is  not  always  so  easy  a  matter;  because  these  writers 
are  often  very  vague  and  undetermined  in  the  use  of  language,  and 
not  always  consistent  with  themselves.  Hence  we  find  opposing 
claims  often  put  into  the  authority  of  the  Fathers. 

But  it  is  wonderful  that  bishop  R.  did  not  perceive  that  his  rule 
as  thus  understood,  applies  to  old  controversies  respecting  Theo- 
logical Doctrine;  and  not  to  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  It  is 
Qne  thing,  to  tell  the  meaning  of  scripture;  and  another  to  draw 
out  that  meaning  in  a  series  of  propoiritions  expressing  theological 
truth.  One  is  the  business  of  the  interpreter;  the  other  of  the 
systematic  writer.  In  regard  both  to  one  and  the  other,  the  Bible 
is  so  plain,  that  for  the  most  part,  there  is  no  danger  that  the  sin- 
cere inquirer  will  be  mistaken.  If  there  is  difficulty  or  dispute 
respecting  doctrine,  it  is  certainly  an  advantage  to  know  what  the. 


Ileview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqfi's  Vindication  and  Defence.  189 

early  church  held  to  be  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  apostles.  Bui 
this,  except  in  a  fevv  cases,  is  a  matter  of  extreme  ditliculty;  anil 
not  to  be  accomplished  without  the  most  diligent  research.  Wh<> 
can  give  an  instance,  where  the  scripture  is  not  clear,  of  a  dispute 
terminated  by  the  authority  of  the  Fathers?  Romanists,  Protest- 
ants, Episcopalians,  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  Paedo-baptists,  all 
claim  them;  and  controversies  are  terminated,  not  by  the  convic- 
tion of  one  party,  but  by  the  weariness  of  the  combatants  on  the 
public.  Bishop  R.  knows  this,  as  well  as  we  do,  and  therefore 
in  the  calm  exercise  of  his  judgment,  he  cannot  but  acknowl- 
edge that  the  rule  laid  down  by  him,  is  merely  an  imperfect  help 
in  ascertaining  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  But  as  we  under- 
Stood  him,  and  as  the  whole  tenor  of  his  sermon  seemed  to  require, 
the  rule  is  authoritative.  "  That  interpretation  of  scripture  is  to 
be  followed  and  relied  on,  &c.  And  in  the  reasoning  contained  in 
pp.  106,  107,  &,c.  the  same  thing  seems  to  be  assumed:  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  disputed  doctrine  or  interpretation  is  to  be  submitted 
to  the  judgment  of  the  primitive  church;  and  from  this,  there  lies 
no  appeal.  Authority  cannot  be  more  absolute.  But  in  page  123, 
the  bishop  says,  "As  clearly  then,  as  can  well  be  expressed,  the 
rule  is  given  and  is  presented  by  me,  as  a  help  to  private  judgment  ^ 
as  a  safe  guide  to  disputed  truth,  on  a  subject  of  the  highest  inter- 
est." Now  to  us  there  appears  an  inconsistency  between  these 
uses  of  the  rule.  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  a  rule  to 
which  my  understanding  must  submit;  and  one  which  affords  me  aid 
in  making  up  my  opinion.  We  have  not  the  slightest  objection  to 
use  the  rule  in  this  latter  sense;  as  our  onn  practice  shows.  And 
we  use  it  with  a  confidence  proportioned  to  its  adaptation  to  the 
particular  subject  of  inquiry.     For  illustration. 

If  the  question  in  dis[)ute  is  one  of  simple,  naked  fact;  and  the 
witnesses  referred  to  were  so  situated,  that  they  could  not  but 
know  the  fact,  we  consider  their  testimony  as  of  the  greatest  value. 
If  for  instance  we  wish  to  determine  the  dispute  respecting  the 
Baptism  of  the  children  of  believers;  we  go  first  to  scripture;  and, 
endeavoring  faithful!)'  to  apply  to  them  the  principles  of  interpre- 
tation, as  we  apply  them  to  all  other  books,  we  ascertain  as  well 
as  we  can  what  the  word  of  God  teaches.  Here  is  the  only 
authority  to  which  we  ever  submit.  But  that,  which  convinces  us, 
does  not  convince  others.  Well,  if  Christ  appointed  that  the 
children  of  believers  should  be  baptized,  no  doubt  the  apostles  did 
thus  baptize.  Here  then  is  a  plain,  palpable  fact,  in  relation  to 
which  mistake  is  not  possible.  We  resort  then  to  the  early  writers, 
as  witnesses.  We  sit  in  judgment,  and  weigh  testimony;  but  do  by 
no  means  submit  to  authority.  This  testimony,  when  fairly  ascer- 
tained, we  regard  as  of  very  great  importance. 

The  case  is  precisely  the  same  in  regard  to  the  Episcopal  con-, 
troversy.  We  go  to  the  word  of  God:  there  we  find  ministers 
with  ordinary  and  extraordinary  powers:  those  of  ordinary  pow- 
ers, are  clearly  intended  to  be  standing  officers  in  the  church:  they 
are  called  by  various  titles  which  are  used  interchangeably;  bishops, 
presbyters,  stewards,  &.c.  &:c.  We  are  convinced  that,  according 
to  the  first  pattern  of  the  church,  there  was  no  distinction  of  rank 


1^0  Ret'iexv  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl's  Vindication  and  VefeiicC. 

or  order  in  the  family  of  Christ.  Here  again  is  a  question  of  fact; 
concerning  which,  witnesses  could  hardly  be  deceived.  But  it  is  a 
matter  of  testimony;  not  of  authority.  We  begin  then  at  the  be- 
ginning, and  examine  every  unsuspected  witness  we  can  find  for 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years.  The  body  of  testimony  found  in  the 
course  of  this  examinntion,  greatly  strengthens  our  conviction  that 
we  have  given  tiie  right  inter[)rctation  to  the  particular  parts  of 
scripture,  which  concern  church  government. 

Of  precisely  similar  character;  but  of  higher  import  is  the  ques- 
tion respecting  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  New  Test- 
ament. We  read  the  book;  it  is  one  of  very  extraordinary  charac- 
ter. Who  wrote  it?  Here  is  a  question  of  naked  fact.  It  is  de- 
termined exactly  in  the  same  way  with  the  authorship  of  any  other 
book.  The  evidence  is  so  full  and  decisive  as  to  produce  complete 
conviction.  So  that  if  fiiith  is  to  be  given  to  human  testimony, 
there  cannot  be  the  least  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  this  book.  VVe  have  no  hesitation,  then,  in  resort- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  christians  in  regard  to  these  facts,  respect- 
ing which  there  can  be  no  deception.  And  we  place  on  it  the 
greatest  reliance. 

But  every  intelligent  reader  perceives  at  once,  that  there  is  a 
wide  cHfference  between  this  case,  and  the  question,  what  is  the 
meaning  of  this  book,  called  the  New  Testament?  It  is  not  possi- 
ble to  doubt  as  to  the  men  who  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States — But  we  know  that  there  are  deplorable  disputes  as  to  its 
construction.  In  settling  disputes  of  this  kind,  we  place  a  very 
high  value  on  what  may  be  called  historical  interpretation.  But 
yet  the  nature  of  the  case  makes  it  very  different  from  that  of  de- 
termining the  authorship  of  a  book.  Paul  wrote  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans.  This  is  a  simple  affirmation  of  fact,  which  testimony  de- 
cides at  once.  Paul  in  writing  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  intended  to 
leach  such  and  such  truths.  Here  is  a  general  affirmation  contaming 
in  it,  just  as  many  distinct  particulars  as  there  are  sentences  in  the 
epistle;  or  as  there  are  propositions,  that  may  be  derived  from  it. 
Now  we  grant,  that  if  testimony  could  be  brought  to  bear  on  each 
distinct  proposition  contained  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,  just  as 
it  may  be  on  the  fact,  Paid  wrote  that  letter,  there  would  be  no 
more  room  for  doubt  in  one  case  than  in  the  otber.  Bishop  R. 
then  has  plainly  mistaken  the  point,  when  he  affirms  that  disputes 
in  relation  to  interpretation  are  settled  in  the  same  way,  in  which 
we  determine  that  the  Srriptures  are  the  word  of  God.  It  is  true, 
as  far  as  historical  interpretation  goes,  it  is  evidence  of  the  same 
kind  ;  that  is  testimony.  But  it  is  testimony  respecting  very  differ- 
ent matters;  and  given  in  very  different  circumstances. 

We  admit  that  the  matters  in  dispute,  do  not  concern  one  hun- 
dreth  part;  nor  one  thousandth  part  of  the  propositions  that  may 
be  framed  from  the  New  Testament;  for — thanks  to  God! — that 
blessed  book  is,  in  general,  too  plain  to  be  disputed  about.  But 
Tvhen  there  is  a  controversy  respecting  the  meaning  of  passages, 
which  involve  undetermined  points  of  doctrine,  then  the  difficulty 
is  great.     For, 

1.  It  is  often  extremely  difficult  to  find  witnesses  giving  uniform 
testimony. 


lieview  of  Bhhop  Ravcnscrqft^ s  Vindication  and  Defence.  191 

2.  They  are  often  too  remote,  to  be  safely  relied  on. 

3.  The  witnesses  on  vvliich  we  might  most  safely  depend,  are 
«ften  altogether  silent  as  to  the  points  in  dispute. 

4.  The  witnesses  sometimes  disagreed  among  themselves. 

It  is  then,  in  relation  to  many  matters  now  brought  into  question 
utterly  impossible  to  say  what  "sense  and  meaning"  of  Scripture 
"has  been  invariably  held  and  acted  upon,  by  tlie  one  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  church  of  Chiist." 

Bishop  R,  does  indeed  "  <,onfidently  assert  his  ability  to  show, 
what  the  primitive  church  invariably  held,  as  the  true  sense  and 
meaning  of  Scripture,  on  any  point  of  disputed  doctrine  or  order, 
which  the  reviewer  may  please  to  select."  (pa.  108.)  Now  we 
have  no  doubt  that  the  bishop  really  tiiought  that  he  could  do  this. 
But  the  Reviewer,  does  not  believe  that  he  can:  nor  will  he  be- 
lieve it,  until  the  thing  is  done.  We  shall  select  a  few  cases  after 
a  while,  on  which  he  may,  if  he  pleases,  try  his  hand.  In  the 
mean  time,  we  must  inform  him  that  the  adversaries  of  high-church 
principles  have  often  referred  to  the  rule,  in  substance,  giv^n  by 
him,  and  have  put  the  decis^ion  of  their  case  on  the  testimony  of 
the  pri(nitive  churrh.  Tliey  have  not  then  refused  to  submit  to 
the  rule;  but  have  maintained  that  the  rule  worked  in  their  favor. 
The  true  state  of  this  whole  matter,  then,  is  just  this.  If  bishop  R. 
means  that  the  testimouy  of  (he  primitive  church,  as  far  as  it  can  be 
ascertained,  is  a  valuable  hei>p  in  determining  disputes  respecting 
interpretation,  or  doctrine,  we  have  the  happiness  of  agreeing  with 
liim.  If  he  means,  however,  that  points  of  difference  are  to  be 
authoritatively  decided  by  a  reference  to  the  primitive  church,  then 
Tve  do  certainly  dilTer  from  him;  and  maintain  that  the  rule  is  in- 
consistent with  that  right  of  private  judgment,  which  is  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  the  Reformation.  In  reading  the  bishop's 
pamphlet,  we  find  him  appearing  to  ^us  sometimes  to  hold  one  of 
these  opinions,  and  sometimes  the  other.  All  that  we  hereafter 
have  to  say  is  on  the  supposition  that  he  maintains  the  authoritative 
character  of  his  rule. — Or  the  case  may  be  thus  stated.  If  we  are 
investigating  a  passage  of  Scripture,  we  iirst  resort  to  the  usage  of 
the  writer;  then  the  usage  of  other  writers  in  the  same  language, 
to  the  scope  of  the  passage,  the  contest,  &.c.  according  to  the  plain 
rules  of  common  sense.  And  among  the  helps  employed,  we  are 
always  ready  to  use  the  Fathers;  but  often  we  acknowledge  with 
very  little  satisfaction. 

VVhen  the  inquiry  respects  a  point  of  doctrine,  our  first  recourse 
is  to  the  scriptures;  and  the  first  step  there  is  to  ascertain  their  real 
meaning.  When  this  is  done,  there  is  generally  no  difliculty  in  de- 
termining tl)c  matter  in  question:  but  should  there  be  a  dilficulty, 
we  resort,  among  other  aids,  to  the  writings  of  the  primitive  church; 
and  gladly  accept  .my  assistance  we  can  lind  there,  in  making  up 
our  mind.  Will  bishop  R.  agree  to  this?  If  so,  our  controversy  is 
at  an  end. 

But  does  he  not  say  thus? — Mere  is  a  point  of  doctrine  or  order  in 
dispute.  We  cannot  settle  it.  But  the  primitive  church  (i.  e.  the 
three '"'reeds  and  the  four  general  Councils)  has  determined  the  point, 
if  you  do  not  submit  to  this  decision.     1  hold  you  as  schismiUics  or 


19&  Review  of  Bishop  Ravenseroft^s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

heretics,  or  both;  and  refuse  to  acknowledge  you  as  members  ot 
the  church,  or  partakers  in  God's  covenanted  mercies.  This  we 
oppose. 

I.  Because  the  rule  runs  in  a  circle.  The  bishop  tells  us  to 
search  the  scriptures;  but  he  bids  us  go  to  the  church,  that  we  may- 
learn  the  true  meaning  of  scripture.  Well,  where  shall  we  find 
the  true  church?  Here  are  the  Romish  church,  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  church,  the  Presbyterian  church,  the  Lutheran  church, 
the  Congregational  church — all  claiming  to  be  true,  and  some  ex- 
clusively true.  What  shall  we  do?  Go  to  the  primitive  church? 
But  suppose  that  we  cannot  do  that;  and  all  claim  to  have  the  true 
pattern — whom  shall  we  believe?  Mui-t  we  not  of  necessity  either 
put  implicit  faith  in  one  or  the  other  of  these  opposing  claimants, 
or  go  to  the  Bible,  and  judge  as  well  as  we  can  for  ourselves?  If 
we  do  the  first,  we  shall  be  pretty  certain  to  choose  that  denomina- 
tion, where  we  find  the  most  kind  hearted,  humble,  benevolent  and 
holy  men.  If  this  should  happen  to  be  a  Presbyterian,  or  Luthe- 
ran denomination,  then  the  Catholic  sends  us  to  the  pit  at  once,  and 
the  high- churchman  leaves  us  to  uncovenanted  mercy.  But  if  we 
do  the  last — then  we  search  the  scriptures  to  find  the  church;  and 
go  to  the  church  to  explain  the    scriptures. 

But  on  the  supposition  that  we  can  search  the  records  of  the  pri- 
mitive church;  how  far  do  these  terms  reach?  They  include  the 
first  four  general  Councils, — that  is,  they  reach  450  years.  But  in 
going  through  the  records  of  this  period,  we  find  something  to  favor 
Congregationalism;  more  to  support  Presbyterianism;  and  in  about 
400  years  strong  evidences  for  Episcopacy;  with  now  and  then  a 
little  in  favor  of  the  Papists.  And  in  modern  times,  we  do  not  see 
any  thing  exactly,  in  all  respects,  like  the  primitive  church.  What 
are  we  then  to  do?  The  primitive  church  itself  presents  us  differ- 
ent aspects;  and  really,  we  are  unable  to  decide.  Taking  the  first 
three  centuries  for  our  standard;  we  should,  on  the  wliole,  be  Pres- 
byterians. But  taking  the  next  century  and  a  half,  we  should  in  all 
probability  be  Episcopalians.  We  must  go  to  scripture,  and  find 
the  notes  of  a  true  church  there.  And  then,  according  to  the  rule, 
we  must  look  to  the  church  to  expound  the  scripture.  Drive  this 
argument  as  we  may,  it  will  run  round  m  a  circle. 

But  the  bishop  has  taken  up  a  strange  notion,  that  our  argument 
has  the  fault,  which  we  have  attributed  to  liis.  Lot  the  reader 
turn  to  pages  106,  107,  108,  and  he  will  see  a  very  curious  attempt 
to  make  this  out.  The  substance  is  this: — There  are  opposite  views 
of  the  faith  or  order  of  the  gospel.  Both  preacher  and  Reviewer 
say,  search  the  scriptures.  The  search  has  been  made;  and  the 
disputants  do  not  agree.  The  bishop  proposes  to^  refer  the  matter 
to  the  "judgment  of  the  primitive  church."  No,  says  the  Review- 
er, I  appeal  to  the  scriptures.  y\nd  all  the  bishop  can  do;  the  Re- 
viewer stands  to  his  first  principle — search  the  scriptures.  That 
is,  an  argument,  which  stands  stock  still,  runs  round  in  a  circle! 

The  meaning  of  the  Reviewer  on  this  subject  is  this  :  What  can- 
not be  decided  by  the  Bible,  in  matters  of  religion  can  be  decided 
by  no  authority  whatsoever.  And  considering  the  intention  with 
which  the  word  of  God  was  given,  matters  which  cannot  be  settled 


Review  ef  Bishop  ltavenseroJ%'s  yv^dkation  and  Defence.  193 

by  recurring  to  the  Scripture,  interpreted  according  to  the  sound 
principles  of  IIermeneutics--once  more  let  this  word  be  pardoned  ! 
— cannot  be  authoritatively  settled  at  all.  And  he  that  adopts,  and 
persists  in  the  wronj;  opinion,  must  bear  the  consequences,  what- 
ever they  may  he.  But  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  questions 
of  this  sort  are  not  "fundamental;" — not  of  the'essence  of  religion. 
For  illustration — we  take  the  leading  question  between  Episcopa- 
lians and  Presbyterians.  Both  go  to  Scripture;  and  they  cannot 
settle  it.  T'he  Fresliyterian  thinks  however,  that  the  terms  of 
Scripture  clearly  give  him  the  advantajie. — The  Episcopalian  re- 
sorts to  the  Fathers.  The  Presbyterian  follows  him.  All  the 
stores  of  ancient  learning  are  laid  open.  Men  of  the  highest  name 
are  ranged  on  each  side.  Jewel,  and  Hooker,  and  Beveridge,  and 
Hammond  and  Potter  on  the  one;  Salmasitis,  Milton,  Blondel,  Claude, 
D'Aille,  &c.  on  the  other.  The  subject  is  perfectly  exhausted. 
The  Presbyterian  is  positive  that  all  the  best  evidence  is  in  his  fa- 
Tor;  because  it  is  the  earliest  unsuspected  testimony  that  can  be 
brought  to  bear  on  the  case.  The  Episcopalian  is  confident  that 
the  Fathers  favor  his  cause.  Both  agree,  that  there  must  be  a 
ministry  of  the  Gospel,  regularly  ordained;  and  the  great  difference 
is,  whether  the  ordaining  power  is  lodged  with  Presbyters;  or  is 
committed  to  the  superior  order  of  bishops.  Now  we  say,  that  a 
question  of  this  sort  cannot  surely  belong  to  the  essence  of  religion; 
it  cannot  be  essential  to  the  being  of  a  church.  You  may  be  a  true 
christian,  entitled  to  covenanted  mercies,  and  be  either  a  Presbyte- 
rian, or  an  Episcopalian.  Does  bishop  R's  rule  overthrow  this  po- 
sition? If  it  does;  it  is  more  rigid  than  any  rule  laid  down  in  the 
word  of  God;  and  therefore  we  reject  it.  He  thinks  it  a  fearful 
thing,  that  the  qunstion  never  can  be  settled.  We  think  it  not  near 
so  bad  as  to  settle  it  by  any  authority  short  of  the  word  of  God.  If 
we  are  not  convinced  that  the  decision  of  men  accords  with  the  true 
meaning  of  the  word  of  God,  and  we  submit;  then  the  submission 
of  our  understanding  is  made  not  to  God,  but  to  man.  Should  this 
be  done  in  every  case  of  disputed  doctrine,  where  would  be  liberty 
of  conscience,  or  the  right  of  private  judgment.  "  But  (says  the 
bishop,  pa.  107,)  the  mischief  stops  not  here.  If  such  reasoning 
be  correct,  the  purpose  of  God  in  the  revelation  of  his  will  is  re- 
versed, and  private  judgment,  competent  or  incompetent,  (for  you 
cannot  limit)  made  the  standard  of  the  word  of  God.  Thus  faith  is 
uptorn  from  tbe  foundation,  and  religion  scattered  to  the  winds." 
What  purpose  of  God  is  reversed?  It  cannot  be  God's  purpose,  in 
putting  Ins  word  into  our  hanris,  to  direct  us  in  the  way  of  salvation. 
And  when  we  place  our  faith  in  the  word  of  God,  as  interpreted  ac- 
cording to  our  best  reason,  how  is  faith  uptorn?  When  we  are  at 
a  loss  to  understand  the  word  of  God,  if  any  one  proves  its  mean- 
ing to  us,  and  the  understanding  submits,  still  it  is  to  the  authority 
of  God.  But  if  any  one,  or  any  body  of  men  decrees  or  testifies 
that  the  word  of  God  means  so  anJ  so,  without  proo/,  then  the  credit 
is  given  to  men,  and  not  to  God.  This  we  think  is  tearing  up  faith 
^vith  a  witness. 

But  in  the  next  place,  the  rule  is  held  not  to  be  good,  because 
its  application  is  impossible.     Here  the  bishop  asserts  his  ability  t» 


1 94  Review  of  Ijishop  llavens&i'ojt* s  Tindication  and  Defence. 

show  what  the  primitive  church  invariably  hckl  as  to  any  disputed 
point  whatsoever — and  the  same  thing  as  to  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church — or  the  particnh\r  denomination  of  christians  calling  it- 
self (^he  will  not  call  it)  the  Presbyterian  church.  Bishop  R.  has 
read  the  fable  of  the  traveller,  who  made  a  long  jump  at  Rhodes. 
He  mast  do  the  thing,  and  then  we  will  believe  him.  Let  him  show 
then  what  the  primitive  church  invariably  held  respecting  the  of- 
fice of  Deacons :  or  that  of  bishops  or  presl)yters — or  respecting 
the  filioque  controversy  ;  or  the  quinquarticutar  controversy. — 
When  he  shall  have  done  this,  we  will,  should  we  live  long  enough, 
give  him  some  other  points  to  settle. 

But  we  will  be  less  rigid. — Let  the  bishop  show  us  what  in  every 
age  since  its  foundation,  the  Church  of  England  has  invariably  be- 
lieved. Here,  however,  it  wdl  not  do,  to  tell  us  that  the  Church 
of  England  has  had  her  articles  from  the  beginning  unto  this  day. 
Because — not  to  insist  on  the  several  revisions  of  them  which  have 
taken  place — the  letter  of  the  articles  does  not  express  the  belief, 
of  the  Church  of  England;  it  is  the  meaning  attached  to  them  which 
performs  this  service.  Now  in  regard  to  this  matter  there  have 
been  very  considerable  charges,  while  the  articles  themselves  have 
remained  pretty  much  the  same.  Let  bishop  R.  make  himself  ac- 
quainted with  theological  literature  from  the  reign  of  Edward  VL 
to  Charles  L  and  say  what  were  the  sentiments  of  the  Fathers  and 
Reformers  of  the  Church  of  England.  Let  him  then  pursue  a  course 
of  reading  through  the  works  of  the  leading  writers,  from  the  days 
of  Laud  to  the  present  time:  and  he  will  find  that  the  articles  of 
the  Church  of  England  do  not  enable  one  to  tell  what  sense  and 
meaning  the  Church  of  England  has  invariably  given  to  Scripture. 
Because,  in  truth,  she  has  given  a  different  meaning  to  her  own  ar- 
ticles, in  different  periods  of  her  history.  And  at  this  very  time, 
there  are  or  very  lately  there  have  been  warm  controversies  in 
that  church  as  to  the  true  interpretation  of  these  articles.  Plainly 
then  the  bishop's  rule  will  not  ansvver.  It  never  has  answered 
where  conscience  has  been  free.  Here,  however,  we  must  insist 
on  not  being  misunderstood.  We  not  only  admit,  but  we  hold  that 
the  articles  of  any  particular  church  taken  in  their  plain,  grammati- 
cal meaning,  clearly  enough  indicate  how  the  church,  which  ad- 
heres to  that  meaning,  understands  the  particular  passages  of  scrip- 
ture referred  to  in  support  of  the  articles;  and,  as  far  as  the  articles 
go,  it  is  determined  what  doctrine  is  derived  from  Script'ire.  This 
we  take  it,  suggests  the  true  and  proper  use  of  Creeds  and  Confes- 
sions. The  church  says,  we  understand  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
such  and  such  doctrines;  if  you,  on  diligent  inquiry,  find  it  to  be  so, 
we  can  walk  together  in  the  fellowship  of  the  same  society.  And 
ihe  purpose  is  served  as  long  as  the  church  adheres  to  the  plain 
meaning  of  her  own  articles.  But  when  we  fly  from  this  purpose, 
and  undertake  to  determine  the  meaning  of  any  disputed  text  of 
Scripture,  by,  referring  to  that  which  the  church  has  invariably  held, 
we  commit  the  logical  absurdity  of  attempting  to  settle  an  xmknown 
question  by  one  vixove.unkno-wn,  ignotum  per  ignotius.  No  difficul- 
ty in  Scripture  is  so  great  as  that  of  determining,  in  relation  to 
pvery  disputed  point,  what  the  primitive  church  invariably  held. 


Mttiiew  of  Bishop  Ravetiscroft^ s  Vindication  and  Defence.  195 

The  questions  proposed  by  our  reviewer,  in  relntion  to  particular 
doctrines,  t\s  held  by  tlic  Episcopal  church,  retain  all  their  force. 
We  inquired,  formerly,  what  that  church  held  concerning  the  17th 
article.  The  bishop  does  not  tell  us;  but  aflirms,  without  the 
shadow  of  proof,  that  on  this  subject,  her  doctrine  is  what  it  always 
ivas.  But  what  is  this  invariable  doctrine?  "It  is  not  calvinistic;" 
says  the  bishop.  Well  then,  what  is  it?  Until  the  bishop  shall  an- 
swer this  question,  we  have  a  right  to  assume,  that  he  is  unable  to 
do  it.  And,  whatever  may  be  the  doctrine  held  by  the  church  of 
England  at  present,  we  are  prepared  to  prove  that  Cranmer,  Lati- 
mer, Ridley,  Hooper,  Parker,  Giindal,  VVhitgift,  and  the  great  body 
of  English  bishops,  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  James  I.  held  senti- 
ments, which  are  now  called  calvinistic.  We  have  no  room  here 
to  adduce  the  evidence,  by  which  these  facts  can  be  established. 
But,  should  any  one  hesitate  as  to  the  truth  of  the  statement,  we 
pledge  ourselves  to  put  the  matter  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt.* 

As  for  Baptismal  regeneration,  we  refer  the  bishop  for  a  refuta- 
tion of  his  opinion  to  Scott,  Biddulph,  and  other  Episcopal  writers, 
ivho  have  recently  agitated  that  question. 

And  in  relation  to  the  general  subject  of  Calvinism,  the  bishop's 
Caricature  of  the  floctrine,  reminds  us  of  bishop  Horsle3;'s  advice 
to  men  very  much  like  our  diocesan.  Take  care  that  you  knoxv  what 
Calvinism  is  before  you  oppose  it. — We  have  only  to  say  farther,  that 

*  Our  readers  may,  perhaps,  know  sometliing  of  the  famous  Lambeth  Ar- 
■  tides.     Tliey  were  drawn  up  at  Lambetli  palace,  under  tlie  eye  of  Archbish- 
op Whitgift,  in  connexion  with  Bancroft^  then  of  London,  and  afterwards 
of  Canterbury;    Vuiighan  of  Bangor;   Tindal  dean   of  Ely,  and   JVhitakev 
queen's  professor  of  Divinity.     They  are  in  these  words. 

1.  God  hath,  from  eternity,  predestinated  certain  persons  to  life;  and  hath 
reprobated  certain  persons  unto  deatli. 

2.  The  moving,  or  efficient  cause  of  predestination  unto  life,  is  not  the 
foresight  of  faith,  or  of  perseverance,  or  of  good  works,  or  of  any  thing 
that  is  in  the  persons  predestinated  :  but  the  alone  will  of  God's  good 
pleasure. 

3.  The  predestinate  are  a  predetermined  and  certain  number,  which  can 
neither  be  lessened,  nor  increased. 

4.  Such  as  are  not  predestinated  to  salvation,  shall  inevitably  be  con- 
demned on  account  of  their  sins, 

5.  The  true,  lively  and  justifying  faith,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  justifying, 
is  not  extinguisiied,  doth  not  utterly  fail,  doth  not  vanish  away,  in  the  elect, 
either  finally,  or  totally. 

6.  A  true  believer,  that  is,  one  who  is  endued  with  justifying  faith,  is 
certified,  by  the  full  assurance  of  faith,  that  his  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that 
he  shall  be  everlastingly  saved  by  Christ. 

7.  Saving  grace  is  not  allowed,  is  not  imparted,  is  not  granted  to  all  men, 
by  which  they  may  be  saved  if  they  will. 

8.  No  man  is  able  to  come  to  Christ,  unless  it  be  given  him,  and  unless 
the  Father  draw  him  :  and  all  men  are  not  drawn  by  the  Father,  that  they 
may  come  to  his  Son. 

9.  It  is  not  in  the  will  or  power  of  every  man  to  be  saved. 

Of  these  famous  articles,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  thus  expresses 
himsflf,  "J  know  them  to  bf  soiiml  doctrines,  mid  uniformly  professed  in  this 
Church  of  England,  and  agreeable  to  the  articles  of  religion  established  by 
authority."  The  Archbishop  of  York  (Hutton)  gave  his  testimony  in  their 
favor. — And  these  very  articles  were  sent  to  the  University  of  Cambridge 
with  a  letter  from  VVhitgift,  in  which  it  was  desired  that  "nothing  be  pub- 
licly taught  to  the  contrarv." — VVhat  was  the  doctrine  held  bv  the  cimrch 
oF  England  then  r 


1 96  IReview  of  Bishop  lla-oenscrojl-s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

<lic  bishop  shows  himsftlf greatly  to  need  this  advice.  Disclaiming 
utterly  all  resemblance  between  the  doctrines  reprobated  by  this 
writer,  and  those  of  the  christians  called  Calvimsts,  we  do  not  feel 
ourselves  called  on  to  say  a  word  more  on  this  subject. 

The  question  urged  by  the  bishop,  (pa.  1 13.)  "  in  what  method 
we  would  proceed  to  produce  the  conversion  of  a  fallen  being,  ab- 
solutely unregenerate  ?"  is  noticed   here  as  a  theological  curiosity. 

Our  next  objection  to  the  bishop's  rule  is,  that  it  is  contrary  to 
{\xe  fundamental  principle  of  the  Reformation. 

On  this  point  we  do  not  feel  the  necessity  of  making  many  re- 
marks. If  any  one  knows  not,  that  the  sole  authority  of  Scripture 
to  settle  questions  of  religious  controversy  is  the  furulstmental  prin- 
ciple of  the  Reformation,  it  is  necessary  tor  him  to  study  ecclesias- 
tical history.  We  have  before  said,  that  if  bishop  II.  means  that 
the  testimony  of  the  ancient  church,  as  far  as  it  can  be  clearly  ascer- 
tained, and  the  expositions  of  {he  fathers,  are  to  be  taken  as  helps, 
to  be  used  according  to  our  best  judgment,  there  is  no  difference 
between  us  on  this  point  :  but  if  they  are  to  be  taken  as  authority, 
to  which  private  judgment  must  submit,  then  we  are  forever  against 
him  :  and  what  is  more,  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  are 
against  him. 

His  error  arises  from  this.  The  great  men,  who  conducted  the 
Reformation,  had  to  maintain  their  ground  against  those  who  had 
been  accustomed,  for  ages,  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  church. 
The  influence  of  this  authority  was  very  great.  While,  therefore, 
Uicy  adopted,  as  their  first  principle,  the  siifficiency  of  the  Scriptures 
and  made  them  the  sole  judge  of  controversy,  they  were  not  slow 
to  take  their  adversaries  on  their  own  ground  ;  and  were  not  un- 
willing to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  the  judgment 
of  the  primitive  church.  Many  would  have  given  them  no  credit 
at  all,  had  they  not  pursued  this  course.  Accordingly  it  would  be 
perfectly  easy  to  fill  a  folio  volume  with  references  to  the  judgment 
of  the  ancient  church,  and  the  expositions  of  the  fathers,  made  by 
the  Reformers.  But  this  by  no  means  disproves  our  position. — 
Notwithstanding  all  this,  the  rock  on  vvliich  the  Reformation  rested, 
was  the  sufficiency  and  exclusive  authority  of  the  Bible.  The  re- 
ferences then  made  by  tiie  bishop  to  particular  writers,  and  to  the 
Confessions  of  different  churches,  proves  nothing  to  his  purpose. 
"  The  Helvetic  Confession  of  1536"  expresses  precisely  the  thing 
we  have  been  aiming  at.  Articles  2  and  3,  quoted  by  bishop  R. 
pa.  120.  "  The  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  to  be  sought  only  from 
Scripture  itself  that  thus  Scripture  maybe  its  own  interpreter; 
under  the  directing  rule  however  of  charity  and  fiuth." — *'  So  far 
AS  the  holy  fathers  have  adhered  to  this  species  of  interpretation,  we 
not  only  accept  them  as  interpreters  of  Scripture,  but  venerate 
them  as  beloved  instruments  of  God."  This  is  the  true  Presbyte- 
rian, Protestant  rule.  But  we  judge  in  every  case  how  far  they 
have  adhered  to  this  rule. 

The  method  pursued  by  many  Protestants,  however,  of  referring 
to  the  fathers  often  made  their  work  extremely  embarrassing.  The 
remarks  of  bishop  Hurd,  quoted  in  part  in  our  former  Review, 
place  this  subject  exactly  on  the  right  ground.     Bi?hop  R.'s  ntfempt 


Meview  of  Bishop  RavenscrofVs  Vindication  and  Defence.  19? 

to  get  over  this  by  his  usual  cry  of  misrepresentation  only  shows 
that  he  was  "  hard  run,"  See  pa.  139,  note.  Let  any  man  read 
bishop  II. 's  book,  and  if  he  has  no  prejudice  to  warp  his  mind  he 
will  see  that  we  fairly  expressed  the  sense  of  that  ingenious  au- 
thor. The  only  pretence  offered  by  bishop  R.  to  support  the  very 
serious  charges  oi'  unfairness  and  falsehood  is  that  we  placed  in  cap- 
itals, what,  as  bishop  Kurd's  book  is  printed,  was  inclosed  in  hooks 
or  brackets.  School  boys  learn  in  their  elementary  books,  that  a 
parenthesis  consists  of  words  introduced  into  a  sentence,  not  mate- 
rial to  the  sense.  And  they  who  never  advance  farther  in  knowl- 
edge, suppose,  whenever  they  see  the  marks  usually  indicating  a 
parenthesis,  that  something  is  introduced  not  material  to  the  sense. 
But  when  we  read  with  the  understanding  of  men,  we  soon  leara 
that,  very  often,  words  which  are  intended  to  be  very  emphatical, 
and  on  which  great  stress  is  laid,  are  thus  marked.  It  is  easy  to 
give  an  illustration  of  this,  which  bishop  R.  will  feel  to  be  very 
plain.  If  we  could  permit  ourselves  to  descend  to  personalilies, 
and  say  in  relation  to  the  style  and  manner  of  the  book  we  are  re- 
viewing— men  of  coarse  minds,  of  furious  passions  and  violent  pre- 
judices, (and  bishop  R.  is  one  of  these)  always  substitute  abuse  foe 
argument, — would  the  bishop  sa}'  that  the  words  in  the  parenthesis 
were  immaterial  ;  had  little  meaning,  or  none  worthy  of  notice  ? 
On  the  contrary  would  not  he  and  his  friends  cry  out  against  us,  as 
violaters  of  the  courtesy  which  ought  to  distinguish  christians  and 
gentlemen  ?  Let  our  readers  understand  that  we  make  no  asser- 
tion of  this  kind  respecting  bishop  R.  We  only  wish  him  to  see  thai 
in  this  case  he  has  very  unwarrantably  brought  heavy  charges  onus, 
because  we  have  taken  one  method,  (and  that  which  we  are  in  the 
constant  habit  of  using)  of  showing  the  emphasis  of  a  sentence,  while 
the  author  from  whom  we  quoted  adopted  another. 

The  bishop  employs  several  pages  to  show  that  in  attempting  to 
invalidate  the  auihority  of  the  fathers,  we  do,  as  far  as  our  little  in- 
fluence extends,  unmeasurable  mischief,  besides  contradicting  our- 
selves. 

We  aim  a  blow  at  the  foundation  of  all  religion  !  Indeed  ! — This 
is  truly  mischievous  ;  and  worse  than  mischievous.  But  how  ^ 
Why  it  is  on  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  that  we  believe  that  the 
Bible  is  the  word  of  God.  But  here  the  bishop  talks  loosely.  Au' 
thority  is  that  to  which,  without  question,  we  are  bound  to  submit. 
Testimony  is  that  of  which  we  are  to  judge.  When  we  weigh  it 
carefully,  judge  of  its  credibility,  and  see  that  it  is  good,  our  under- 
standing is  fully  convinced.  When  it  applies  to  facts  concerning 
which  there  can  be  no  deception,  is  uniform  and  consistent,  doubt 
is  utterly  unreasonable.  This  is  the  case  with  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers  respecting  the  important  matter  involved  in  this  question. 
But  the  bishop  does  not  state  the  point  on  which  this  testimony  of 
the  fathers  bears.  They  do  not  directly  prove  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God:  they  prove  that  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  &c.  wrote 
the  books  ascribed. to  them  ;  and  that  these  books  were  believed  by 
them  to  be  the  word  of  God.  A  number  of  steps  more  are  neces- 
sary to  make  us  believe  it.  The  testimony  of  the  fathers  then  to 
the  fact  of  authorship  is  a  very  different  thing  from  authority,  in  the 
only  sense  in  which  this  word  is  relevant  to  the  subject. 


11)8  Review  of  Bishop  HavcnsGroJih  Vindication  and  Defence. 

As  to  our  inconsistency,  we  liave  already  sliown  the  weakness  of 
the  charge.  Testimony  nuay  bo  fully  sufficient  to  convince  us  that 
aiich  an  action  as  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  performed — and  yet 
the  testimony  of  the  very  same  men  may  be  utterly  insufficient  to 
show  thata  book  containing  ten  thousand  distinct  propositions,  means 
so  and  so,  and  cannot  mean  any  thing  else.  While  therefore  we 
attribute  not  a  jot  or  tittle  of  author  it  ij  to  the  fathers,  we  value  their 
testimony  exactly  accorchng  to  its  uoi  th.  And  we  cheerfully  ac- 
knowledge our  obligations  to  D'Aille  for  the  assistance  which  we 
have  derived  fro(n  him— Other  Protestants  have  done  the  same. 
We  admit  indeed  that  lie  pushes  his  argument  too  far ;  yet  he  was 
a  very  great,  learned  and  good  man.  [ins  bishop  R.  ever  read  his 
book  ?  Res^pecting  this  man,  universally  esteemed  sii  the  Protest- 
ant world,  bishop  R.  liiiuUi-  himself  warranted  to  speak  thus.  (Pa. 
124.)  "The  pupil  of  D'Aille  d'.-cl;ne>  his  teacher;  hut  it  requires 
Corinthian  assurance  to  assert,  that  his  work,  on  the  right  use  ofthe 
fathers,  was  useful  to  the  men  you  name.*'  Corinthian  assurance! 
This,  in  plain  English  is,  brazen  impudence.  Well  what  have  we 
done?  Stated  nothing  but  historical  facts.  It  is  undeniable  that 
lord  Falkland  sent  D'Aille's  book  to  Chillmgworth,  and  that  it  was 
the  means  of  extricating  that  admirable  man  from  the  entanglements 
of  Popery.  We  do  request  our  readers  to  procure  bishop  Hurd's 
"  Introduction  to  the  Study  ofthe  Prophecies,^''  and  read  from  page 
329  to  pa.  333,  Amer.  Efhtion.  Lest,  however,  this  should  not  be 
in  their  power,  we  give  the  following  extract.  The  author  had  pre- 
viously shown,  that  Protestants  had  disavowed  and  deserted  the 
principle,  that  the  scripture  is  the  sole  rule  of  cHRlSTIA^f 
FAITH  ;  and  that  great  evils  had  resulted  tVom  this  error.  He  then 
proceeds  thus. 

♦'The  inconvenience  was  sensibly  felt  hy  the  Protestant  world. 
And,  after  a  prodigious  waste  of  industry  and  erudition,  a  learned 
foreigner  (M.  D'Aille)  at  length  showed  the  inutility  and  folly  of 
pursuing  the  contest  any  further.  In  a  well  considered  discourse 
071  the  use  of  the  fathers,  he  clearly  evinced,  that  their  authority 
was  much  less  than  was  generally  supposed,  in  all  points  of  religious 
controversy  ;  and  that  their  judgment  was  especially  incompetent 
in  those  points,  which  were  agitated  by  the  two  parties.  He 
evinced  this  conclusion  by  a  variety  of  unanswerable  arguments  ; 
and  chiefly  by  showing  that  the  matters  in  debate  were,  for  the 
most  part,  such  as  had  never  entered  into  the  heads  of  those  old  ivriiers^ 
heing,  indeed,  of  much  later  grozith,  and  having  first  sprung  up  in  the 
barbaroiis  ages.  They  could  not,  therefore,  decide  on  questions, 
which  they  had  no  occasion  to  consider,  and  had,  in  fact  never  con- 
sidered ;  however  their  careless  or  figurative  expression  might  be 
made  to  look  that  way,  by  the  dextrous  management  ofthe  contro- 
versialists." 

"This  discovery  had  great  effects.  It  opened  the  eyes  of  the 
more  candid  and  intelligent  inquirers  :  and  our  incomparable  Chil- 
lingworth,  with  some  others  (Lord  Falkland,  Lord  Digby,  Dr  Jer. 
Taylor,  &c.  )  took  advantage  of  it  to  set  the  controversy  with  the 
Church  of  Rome,  once  more,  on  its  proper  foot  ;  and  to  establish 
forever,  the  old  principle  that  the  bible,  and  that  only,  (inter- 


.Review  of  Bishop  RavenscroJ'i''s  Vindicaiion  and  Defence.  190 

preted  by  our  best  reason)  is  thr  religion  of  protestants." 
This  Corinthian  assurance  which  the  bishop  so  courteously  assigned 
to  us,  then,  must  be  transferred  to  bishop  Hurd  !  How  could  any 
thing  be  more  unfortunate  ?  It  is  always  safest  to  know  something 
of  books,  before  one  writes  about  them.* 

In  pages  126,  127,  the  bishop  amuses  us  by  his  argument  to  show 
that  we  in  company  with  our  reverend  brother,  Dr  Miller,  take  the 
same  ground  with  the  Unitarians.  Mr  Spurks--  and  we  speiik  liighly  of 
the  learned  D'Aille.  So  also  does  bishop  Hurd;  su  do  many  others. 
Let  tlie  bishop  deal  out  the  same  measure  to  nVl. 

Again.  Dr  Miller,  Mr  Spaiks  and  the  lif viewer  reject  the  au- 
thority of  the  epistles  uf  l-in.itui^<.  And  what  then?  Dr  Miller, 
BIr  Sparks,  bishop  R.,  Mohammed,  and  the  Reviewer  believe  that 
there  is  one  God  ;  and  reject  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  Most 
fearful .' 

One  word  as  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency  in  the  reference  made 
to  the  epistles  of  Ignatius.  They  are  not  quoted  by  any  Presbyte- 
rian as  authority.  The  case  is  just  this.  It  is  much  questioned 
whether  these  writings  are  genuine  or  not  ;  nevertheless  they  are 
very  ancient.  But  as  the  controversy  respecting  them  is  not  set- 
tled, let  us  hear  what  they  say. 

1.  In  relation  to  the  form  of  the  church,  they  are  against  die- 
cesan,  and  in  favor  o{' parochial  episcopacy. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  Unitarian  controversy,  they  are  altogether  on 
the  side  of  the  orthodox. — Whatever  opinion,  then,  may  be  formed 
of  the  value  of  their  testimony,  it  is  all  for  us.  There  surely  is  no 
inconsistency  here  !  As  they  are  very  ancient  writings,  they  show 
at  least  what  was  the  opinion  of  the  author  respecting  these  matters 
of  controversy  ;  and  as  far  as  the  judgment  of  one  man  goes,  they 
throw  liglit  on  the  opinions  of  the  church,  at  the  time  when  he 
lived. 

We  cannot  persuade  ourselves  to  prolong  this  Revievv,  by  fol- 
lowing bishop  R.  through  bis  quotations  from  Chillingworth  and 
Hooker  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  we  have  not  fairly  exhib- 
ited the  sentiments  of  those  great  men.  The  whole  argument  is 
one,  which  we  used,  not  Iterause  vve  thought  it  of  any  importance 
in  itself,  but  because  bishop  R.  called  for  authority;  and  we  wished 
to  suit  his  taste.  The  only  point  in  which  we  can  possibly  feel  any 
interest  in  the  sutject  now,  is  the  refutation  of  the  charge  of  mis- 
representation brought  forward  by  the  bishop.  This  would  be 
easy  enough,  if  it  were  of  any  importance.     As  for  Chillingworth 

*Bishop  R.  was  rash  enough  to  accuse  us  with  unfairness  and  falsehood 
(we  sicken  at  the  very  thoui<ht)  because  in  formerly  quoting  this  passage, 
it  was  printed  differently  from  the  book  from  which  it  was  taken,  as  we 
have  explained  above.  We  hovvi  ver  gave  exactly  the  words,  of  bishop 
Hurd  Bishop  [i.  undertakes  to  give  them  "exactly  as  they  stand"  in 
Hurd's  work,  letter  for  letter,  yet  behold  he  has  them  printed  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent form,  as  may  be  seen. 


Bishop  R.  gives  them  thus. 
And  to  estabfisli  forever  the  old 
principle,  that  the  Bible,  and  tiiat 
only  (  interpreted  by  our  best 
reason)  is  the  religion  of  Protes- 
tants. 


Bishop  Hurd's  book  is  thus  printed. 
"And  to  f  stublish,  forever,  the  old  prin- 
ciple THAT  THE  BIBLE,  and   that   only, 
(interpreted  by  our  best  reason)  is  the 
UELIGIOX      or     PBOTESTANTS,  " HoW 

careless ! 


iaOO  Review  of  Bishop  UavenscrqfCs  Vindicalion  and  Defence. 

we  could  quote  page  after  page  to  show  that  he  did  conduct  his  con- 
troversy with  the  Roman  Cathohcs  on  the  piinciples  which  he 
learned  from  D'Aille,  and  that  he  gave  authority  to  the  Bible  alone. 
And  we  hold  ourselves  able  to  prove  that,  as  for  Hooker,  bishop 
R.  has  yet  to  learn  the  fundamental  principles,  on  which  his  work 
rests.  Bui  after  all,  it  would  amount  only  to  this;  that  we  are  not 
chargeable  with  doing  that,  which  we  are  as  incapable  of  doing  as 
bishop  R.  is  of  acknowledging  Dissenters  to  be  christian  brethren. 
If  there  is  any  such  thing,  as  knowing  definitely  what  men  mean 
by  their  words,  we  are  able  to  prove  that  the  founders  and  fathers 
of  (be  Church  of  England  think  with  us  concerning  the  authority  of 
the  scriptures,  and  their  full  suffiriency  as  interpreted  by  them- 
selves. Should  there  evei  ajipear  any  necessity  for  showing  that 
these  are  not  raere  boasting  tuords,  we  will  not  be  slow  to  engage 
in  the  work. 

Our  Reviewer  had  said  that  bishop  R's.  rule  was  worthless;  and 
in  support  of  bis  assertion  appealed  to  the  state  of  the  Church  of 
England.  The  rule  does  not  produce  uniformity  there.  This  fact 
is  unquestionable.  The  History  of  the  Bible  Society  proves  it. — 
The  state  of  religious  controversy  proves  it.  The  bishop  says 
that  it  is  because  the  minority  in  the  church  refuse  to  submit  to  the 
rule.  Here  his  information  is  not  correct.  For  while  the  best 
men  in  the  English  Church  maintain  the  sufficiency  and  sole 
authority  of  the  scriptures,  in  their  controversies,  they  are  very 
desirous  to  show  tiiat  the  articles  of  the  church,  and  the  fathers,  are 
on  their  side.  So  then  it  is  manifest  that  there  is  a  dispute  about 
the  application  of  tl»e  rule.  And  it  is  found  just  as  difficult  to  de- 
termine in  whose  favour  the  rule  works,  as  what  doubtful  passages 
of  scripture  mean.     What  is  a  rule  worth  in  this  case? 

While  on  this  subject  we  are  bound,  in  justice  to  ourselves,  to 
oifer  a  remark  or  two,  on  some  observations  of  our  Reviewer  in  re- 
lation to  the  established  Church  of  England.  He  had  urged  the 
fact  just  adverted  to  respecting  the  divisions  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, as  proof  positive  that  the  bishop's  rule  is  worthless  and  re- 
marked, that  in  that  establishment,  there  were  high  and  low  church- 
men, Deists,  Arians,  Socinians,  Calvinists,  Arminians  and  Sweden- 
borgians:  and  that  this  not  only  proves  that  the  bishop's  rule  won't 
do;  but  that  great  injury  is  done  to  a  church,  when  government 
encourages  bad  men  to  seek  a  living  in  it.  Novv  these  remarks 
have  been  sadly  misinterpreted  by  the  bishop.  Our  design  was, 
simply  to  state  tlie  evils  of  an  establishment.  It  "  allures  ambi- 
tion, cupidity,  and  infidelity."  It  affords  opportunity  of  simony. 
It  makes  the  church  subservient  to  the  government.  When  has  it 
happened  that  a  British  prime  minister  could  not  command  the  vote 
of  the  bench  of  bishops  ?  When  the  government  supports  the 
church,  will  not  that  government  take  care  that  the  church  will 
answer  its  purposes,  and  promote  its  views?  This  is  the  whole 
amount  of  our  meaning.  And  all  history  proves,  that  establish- 
ments do  aftord  encouragement  to  bad  men  to  seek  a  living  in  the 
church.  We  do  not  pretend  however  that  the  object  of  the  esta- 
blishment is,  to  induce  bad  men  to  enter  the  church.  We  speak 
only  of  the  effect. 


lievkw  of  Bishop  Ravenscreft^s  V%ndicaUon  and  Defence.  20  i 

But  here,  ngain,  the  bishop  is  grievously  offended,  because  in 
speaking  of  the  valueless  character  of  his  rule,  we  adverted  to  the 
fact,  that  clergymen  of  different  sentiments  in  the  Episcopal  church 
subscribe  their  articles  with  different  views.  There  are  probably 
at  this  time  between  five  hunih'ed  and  a  thousand  clergymen  in  the 
English  church, who  in  a  classification  of  religious  opinions  are  called 
Calvinists.  There  may  be  fifty  Swedenborgians.  There  are  very 
many  Arminians.  These  cannot  all  subscribe  the  articles  in  the 
same  sense.  Some  subscribe  ex  nnimo,  that  is,  because  they  really 
receive  the  articles  in  their  plain  grammatical  sense.  Others,  be- 
cause they  are  articles  of  peace.  The  distinction  has  long  been 
made;  and  is  perfectly  familiar.  They  who  subscribe  in  the  latter 
sense,  never  dream  that  they  are  committing  perjury,  or  any  thing 
like  it.  As  little  did  the  Reviewer  ever  think  of  making  such  a 
charge.  This  is  altogether  the  invention  of  bishop  R.  Our 
readers,  then,  may  consider  all  that  he  has  said  on  this  subject  as 
entirely  wide  of  his  mark.  It  is  true,  the  Reviewer  thinks  it  strange 
that  any  man  can  persuade  himself  that  the  articles  of  the  church 
are  anti-calvinistic.  But  he  ha'<  no  doubt  that  some  men  may  so 
believe.  Yet  that  multitudes  subscribe  them  as  peace  articles  he 
has  no  doubt.  Of  them,  he  has  said  nothing  beyond  the  mere  fact; 
and  he  meant  to  make  no  use  whatsoever  of  the  fact,  but  in  the  way 
of  argument  against  the  bishop's  favorite  rule.  We  have  said 
this,  because  we  do  utterly  abhor  the  pr.ictice  of  railing  against 
whole  bodies  of  men,  and  charging  them  with  wickedness,  because 
they  differ  from  us.  VVe  cannot  suffer  ourselves  to  lie  under  any 
such  imputations. 

That  the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England  are  Calvinistic  ap- 
pears evident  from  this;  that  no  Arminian  ever  was  known  to  frame 
such  articles.  When  Mr  Wesley  separated  from  the  Church  of 
England,  and  drew  up  his  system,  how  many  of  the  doctrinal  arti- 
cles of  that  church  did  he  omit?  When  the  dispute  arose  between 
the  Remonstrants  and  Contra- Remonstrants  in  Holland,  what  was 
the  judgment  of  the  English  church  respecting  the  five  points? 
What  unfettered  Arminian  ever  was  known  to  subscribe  the  articles 
of  the  English  church?  But  let  any  man  take  the  articles  and  com- 
pare them,  in  their  plain  grammatical  meaning,  with  the  Confessions 
of  the  Reformed  churches;  and  he  will  not  fail  to  see  that  they  ail 
teach  substantially  the  same  system.  As  for  the  consistency  of  this 
system  with  the  gospel  offer,  it  is  no  part  of  our  present  work  to 
make  it  out;  and  we  are  utterly  unwilling  to  prolong  the  contro- 
versy. Let  bishop  R.  seek  information  from  writers  in  his  own 
church.  Let  him  go  to  Scott  and  Newton.  Or  if  the  authority  of 
these  men  is  not  sufhcient,  let  him  go  to  Hooker,  U)  BeveriHge,  to 
Usher,  to  Hall,  to  Davenant,  to  Whitgift,  to  Grindal,  to  Parker;— 
from  such  writers  as  these,  he  may  perhaps  learn  something. 

In  the  mean  time,  we  must  set  him  right  as  to  the  reason  why 
Evangelical  clergymen  are  objects  of  our  affectionate  regard. 

"That  for  the  Evangelical  Clergy  of  England  (and  I  doubt  not  for  those 
of  America  likewise)  in  this  novel  acceptation  of  the  vvoifl,  Ui-  Rice  'en- 
tertains tiie  highest  regard,'  and  the  sincerest  affection,  needs  not  to  be 
disputed ;  nor  yet,  that  he  rejoices  at  their  increase,     Strange  indeed  i' 


202  Review  of  Bishop  Eavenscroft' s  Vindicalion  and  Defence. 

would  be,  when  men  think  alike,  and  act  as  near  as  possible  by  the  same 
rule,  that  the  bonds  of  fellowship  should  not  be  strengthened.  In  this  case, 
there  is  but  the  mere  trifle  of  Kpiscopacy  betwixt  them  ;  and  as  observa- 
tion has  taught  me,  so  doubtless  it  has  not  escaped  Dr  Rice,  tliat  where  the 
principles  of  Calvin  are  entertained,  ilie  revealed  order  of  the  Gospel,  is 
proportionably,  lightly  regarded.  Hence  the  flattery  wliicli  tl)is  descrip- 
tion of  persons  receives  from  the  Presbyterians,  and  the  high  gratification 
all  classes  of  Dissenters  manifest,  at  recfiving  countenance  from  any  por- 
tion of  the  Episcopal  Church."— pp.  143,  144. 

Here  the  bishop  errs  greatly.  We  have  two  reasons  for  loving 
the  evangelicnl  clergy  of  all  denominations.  1.  They  appear  to 
embrace  the  great  truths  of  our  common  Christianity  with  all  the 
heart,  and  live  under  their  influences.  2.  They  love  these  truths 
so  much,  as  to  recognise  as  brethren,  and  co-operate  with  those, 
who  embrace  them,  notwithstanding  differences  in  form  and  order. 
And  if  this  is,  indeed,  the  effect  of  embracing  the  principles  of 
Calvin,  it  aftords  some  pretty  good  evidence  that  these  are  also  the 
principles  of  the  gospel. 

But  as  for  the  flattery  of  which  the  bishop  speaks,  he  is  entirely 
out.  We  love  truly  evangelical  men  of  ail  denominations;  because 
they  have  the  spirit  of  Christ.  But  when  we  see,  as  unhappily 
we  do  see  men  of  this  character,  allowing  themselves  to  be  screwed 
up  to  high-church  principles,  we  hesitate  not  to  withstand  them  to 
the  face.  We  ask  the  bishop  seriously  to  consider  what  spirit  is 
indicated  by  the  declaration  that  Dissenters  tnanifest  "  high  gratifi- 
cation at  receiving  countenance  from  any  portion  of  the  Episcopal 
church?"  Alas!  how  little  he  knows  of  Dissenters.  They  re- 
joice when  their  Episcopal  brethren  evince  sincere,  humble,  de- 
voted piety: — it  is  the  joy  of  christian  benevolence. 

As  for  bishop  R's  pleas  for  the  English  establishment,  we  let 
them  pass  for  just  what  they  are  worth.  We  advert  to  the  sub- 
ject only  for  the  purpose  of  entering  a  solemn  protest  against  the 
insinuation,  that  we  designed  to  bring  odium  on  the  Episcopal 
church  of  this  country,  by  referring  to  the  establishment  of  Eng- 
land. And  we  hereby  publicly  declare  our  full  and  firm  belief, 
that  there  is  not  an  evangelical  denomination  in  the  United  States, 
at  all  desirous  to  be  brouglit  into  alliance  with  the  state.  Nay 
more:  we  do  verily  believe  that  (he  churches  of  Christ  among  us, 
Episcopalian,  Lutheran,  Presbyterian,  Baptist,  Methodist,  and  Con- 
gregational, would  each  one  severally,  o|)pose  any  such  measure 
for  themselves.  So  deeply,  and  deadly  do  they  believe  the  injury 
done  to  vital  piety  by  these  unholy  mixtures.  VVe  have  inquired 
much  into  this  subject — and  such  is  our  full  conviction.  All  then, 
that  bishop  R.  has  said  on  this  subject  goes  entirely  for  nothing  as 
far  as  we  are  concerned. 

But  we  cannot  dismiss  the  subject  of  the  progress  of  popery  in 
the  present  day,  quite  so  easily.  We  had  forewarned  the  bishop 
that  his  rule  would  not  do,  to  enable  him  to  maintain  a  conflict  with 
the  man  of  sin;  and  that,  let  the  trial  come  when  it  may,  he  would 
find  himself  obliged  to  resort  to  the  great  Protestant  principle  of 
the  sufliciency  of  the  scriptures.  The  History  of  the  Reforma- 
tion according  to  the  bi3hoi)'s  own  showing,  proves  this.  Did  the 
Reformed  churches  adopt  his  rule?     Whence  then,  their  want  of 


Meview  of  Bishop  Ravenscrqft's  Vindicalion  and  Defence.  203 

uniformity?  Why  do  Episcopal,  and  Presbyterian,  and  Lutheran 
churches  in  their  varieties  exist?  And  why  are  interminable  con- 
tests carried  on  respecting  the  form  and  doctrine  of  the  primitive 
church?  And  why  do  the  most  learned  and  skilful  papists  uni- 
formly resort  to  the  Fathers,  for  a  decision  of  controversy?  And 
how  can  the  Fathers  decide  controversies  which  have  arisen  long 
since  they  were  born?  The  bishop  may  rely  on  it,  that  a  contro- 
versy which  cannot  be  settled  by  scripture,  interpreted  on  the 
plain  principles  of  common  sense,  just  as  we  interpret  other  books, 
cannot  be  settled  at  all.     But  this  subject  need  not  now  be  followed. 

That  the  Holy  Alliance  does  use  the  corruptions  of  religion  to 
sustain  their  evil  purposes  we  doubt  not:  that  with  this  view  they 
support  the  Pope  and  the  Jesuits,  and  priests  as  wicked,  the  course 
of  events  renders  very  clear.  And  we  hope  to  be  pardoned  for 
relating  a  personal  anecdote.  It  was  our  fortune  once  to  encounter 
Dr  B.,  a  man  distinguished  for  talent  and  science,  but  unhappily  a 
determined  infidel.  He  attacked  the  Bible  Society  on  the  ground, 
that  it  ivas  a  mere  tool  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  and  expressed  great 
surprise  that  Americans  and  republicans  should  imitate  Europeans 
in  a  case  like  this.  We  defended  the  Bible  Society  on  the  princi- 
ple, that  the  dissemin:!tion  of  the  holy  scriptures  is  favorable  to  the 
interests  of  genuine  liberty.  Our  antagonist  made  the  remark, 
which  bishop  R.  makes  m  a  note  pa.  147,  that  Alexander  of  Rus- 
sia, the  head  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  was  the  greatest  friend  of  the 
Bible  Society  in  the  world.  To  which  we  replied, — He  does  not 
know  what  he  is  doing — But  mark  these  words:  as  soon  as  JHexati' 
der  shall  be  made  to  understand  what  is  the  proper  effect  of  the  Bible 
generally  distributed  among  the  people^  he  will  put  down  the  Bible 
Society  in  his  dominions.  And  our  great  fear  is,  that,  through  the 
activity  of  the  Jesuits,  he  will  make  the  discovery  before  the  Bible  can 
he  fxdly  circulated  among  the  Russian  peasantry. — This  conjecture 
was  verified  by  the  event.  Despots,  political  and  ecclesiastical,  re- 
gard the  Bible  as  their  greatest  enemy. 

And  we  regard  bishop  R.'s  retlections  on  our  Reviewer,  and  his 
'^Jesuitical  arts,"  with  perfect  indifference.  But  at  the  bottom  of 
pa.  148,  (note,)  there  is  a  query  proposed,  which  we  feel  it  to  be 
our  duty  to  notice.  "Is  the  attention  of  the  religious  world  directed 
so  constantly  to  the  march  of  popery,  in  order  to  call  off  its  obser- 
vation, from  the  strides  of  presbytery  to  a  similar  domination?" 
This  question  was  proposed  immediately  after  a  censure  of  our  Re- 
viewer, repeated  about  the  tenth  time,  for  endeavoring  to  excite 
prejudices  against  the  Episcopal  church.  So  much  for  consistency! 
But  as  to  the  injurious  reflection  on  the  Presbyterian  church  here 
made,  we  have  little  to  say,  except  that  we  are  very  sorry  that  any 
one,  for  whom  we  feel  compassion,  should  expose  himself  by  mak- 
ing it.  It  is  much  about  as  wise,  and  as  well  founded,  as  to  say 
that  the  Constitution  of  Virginia  or  North  Carolina  is  monarchical, 
or  that  the  people  are  making  strides  to  overthrow  republicanism. 
If  bishop  R.  had  not  shewn  himself  lamentably  uninformed  in  re- 
gard to  the  Presbyterian  church,  we  should  be  constrained  to  say, 
that  in  this  case,  he  knew  better.  But  he  "knows  not  what  he 
says,  nor  whereof  he  allirms."  And  the  world  knows  little  of  what 
26 


^04  Iteviexv  of  Bishop  RavenscroJt*s  1'lnilicatioii  and  Defence, 

this  country  owes  to  Presbyterhui  principles,  in  giving  "an  impulse 
to  the  ball  of  the  revolution;"  or  to  the  hardy  valor  of  the  sons  of 
the  church;  or  to  the  pious  patrigtism  of  her  ministers.  Some  fu- 
ture Robertson  will  rise  up  and  do  her  justice.  The  world  knows 
not  how  the  principles  of  liberty  are  engraved  in  the  constitution  of 
that  church:  nor  that  domination,  if  exercised  at  all,  must  be  exer- 
cised by  the  people  over  themselves.  We  cannot  here  do  justice 
to  this  subject.  But  this  we  tear  not  to  declare  as  an  unquestiona- 
ble fact,  that  there  is  no  l»ody  of  men  in  the  United  States,  of  equal 
intelligence  and  standing  in  society,  who  meddle  so  little  with  poli- 
tical questions,  and  mingle  so  little  in  the  strife  of  party  politics,  as 
the  Presi^jyterian  clergy. 

As  the  bishop  advances,  he  \vaxes  warmer,  and  we  find  him  mak- 
ing on  pa.  149  the  following  declarations: 

"  And  in  Bishop  R.'s  opinion  (which  he  has  no  desire  to  conceal)  it  is  not 
a  matter  of  much,  thougli  it  is  certainly  of  some,  importance — whether  the 
victory  be  gained  against  tlie  faith,  or  against  the  order  of  the  Gospel. 
Those  are  equaliy  the  Revelation  of  Almighty  God  to  the  world,  and  alike 
fundamental  to  the  hope,  limited  on  the  observance  of  them,  as  divine  ap- 
pointments, ^for  can  the  Bishop  conceive,  upon  what  principle  of  justice, 
or  fair  reasoning,  a  corrupt  and  erroneous  view,  as  to  the  order  of  the  Gos- 
pel, is  less  an  offence  against  God,  than  a  corrupt  and  erroneous  view  as  to 
the  faith  of  the  Gospel.  In  other  words — why  an  honest  Unitarian  is  less 
excusable  before  God,  than  an  honest  Presbyterian,  Con^regationalist  or  In- 
dependent. When  Dr  Rice  can  solve  this  spiritual  problem,  and  shew  by 
warrant  of  Scripture,  that  a  schismatic  is  in  a  less  dangerous  condition  than 
a  heretic,  as  respects  the  righteous  judgment  of  Got],  there  may  be  some 
excuse  for  the  dogmatism  of  this  Reviewer,  against  Unitarians  as  to  the  faith 
of  the  Gospel,  and  m  favor  of  Unitarians  as  to  the  order  of  the  Gospel." 

This  caps  the  climax!  This  single  extract  shows  why  high- 
church  delusions  are  to  be  exposed,  and  high-church  principles  put 
Jown  if  possible.  And  we  have  copied  it  here,  principally  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  why  we  have  felt  it  our  duty  to  subject  the 
bishop's  work  to  a  strict  scrutiny.  One  of  the  striking  distinctions 
between  Christianity  and  every  other  system  of  religion,  is  that  it 
lays  so  little  stress,  comparatively,  on  matters  of  outward  obser- 
vance; while  it  makes  the  truth  supremely  important.  It  is  by  the 
truth,  that  we  are  sanctitied  and  saved.  And  if  any  one  truly  be- 
lieves the  gospel,  relies  on  the  atonement  and  obeys  the  commands 
o[  the  Lord  Jesus;  in  other  words,  if  he  becomes  a  truly  holy  man, 
he  shall  be  saved.  The  gospel  makes  this  as  plain  as  daylight. 
The  whole  order  of  the  gospel  is  founded  on  this  genera!  principle. 
And  therefore  the  office  of  teacher  was  instituted — and  the  sacra- 
ments were  appointed.  The  specific  object  of  the  whole  is  the  con- 
veying of  truth  to  the  understanding  and  conscience:  when  this  isdone 
so  as  to  produce  faith  and  holiness,  the  work  intended  by  Christ  is 
done.  Yet  bishop  R.  is  so  deceived  as  to  believe  and  teach,  that 
besides  all  this,  there  is  something  else  of  nearhj  equal  importance, 
which  he  calls  the  order  of  the  gospel;  something  entirely  distinct 
from  doctrinal  truth  and  its  influences;  something  possessed  by  him, 
his  Presbyters  and  deacons,  as  necessary  to  constitute  one  a  chris- 
tian, as  belief  in  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  Lord  our  Saviour!  He 
cannot,  if  it  were  to  save  his  soul,  draw  out  from  the  scriptures, 


Review  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft's  Vindication  and  Defence,  205 

clearly  and  unequivocally,  the  form  of  the  church  polity,  which  he 
connects  with  the  mercies  of  God;  and  yet  on  account  of  this  form, 
which  he  mistakes  for  a  positive  institution  of  God,  he  divides  the 
church,  and  separates  from  the  great  hody  of  the  faithful,  and  turns 
and  denounces  them  as  heretics  or  schismatics.  And  thinks  that  he 
is  "set"  for  this  purpose.  He  makes  that  to  be  essential  to  the 
being  of  a  church,  and  the  hopes  of  man,  which  he  cannot  prove 
from  the  Bible;  and  his  system  is  in  this  part,  at  war  with  the  true 
genius  of  our  religion. 

The  following  pages  to  160  are  mere  crambe  recocta  a  saying 
over,  of  what  was  said  before.  We  remark  here  only  this,  that  wc 
have  purposely  avoided  any  formal  discussion  of  the  calvinistic 
tenets  attacked  by  bishop  R.  for  two  reasons. 

1.  We  hold  every  man,  who  adopts  the  39  articles,  as  fully  bound 
to  vindicate  the  doctrines  of  predestination  and  election,  as  we  our- 
selves are. 

2.  While  we  never  mean,  on  any  proper  occasion,  to  shrink  ia 
the  least  degree  from  a  support  of  the  doctrines  which  we  have  de- 
rived from  the  word  of  God,  we  cannot  consent  to  undertake  a  work 
of  this  sort,  when  circumstances  utterly  forbid  our  going  through 
with  it.  We  have  a  great  repugnance  to  the  naked  statement  of  any 
doctrine  of  the  scriptures:  it  is  not  so  in  the  Bible.  There  we  find 
the  truth  so  exhibited  as  always  to  show  us  the  practical  reasoa 
why  God  has  revealed  it  to  us.  When  we  are  taught  that  God 
knows  now,  and  knew  from  all  eternity,  every  thing  that  he  will 
know  in  the  day  of  judgment;  that  he  will  form  no  new  purpose  in 
the  day  of  tinal  decision;  that  is  no  purpose  which  he  has  not  formed 
from  all  eternity;  when  we  learn  that  God  is  a  sovereign,  who  order- 
eth  all  things  after  the  council  of  his  own  will,  we  learn  the  whole 
from  the  Bible  in  such  a  way  as  to  lay  a  foundation  for  the  exercise  of 
pious  affections.  When  one  falls  and  breaks  a  limb;  or  is  made  sick 
by  inalaria;  oris  injured  by  his  fellow-men;  or  is  bereaved  by  the 
death  of  friends;  when  one  has  religious  privileges,  and  pious, 
benevolent  feelings,  and  holy  purposes,  he,  as  taught  by  the  word 
and  aided  by  the  spirit  of  God,  sees  the  hand  of  God  in  all  these 
events,  and  exercises  suitable  affections  towards  God;  and  the  gov- 
ernment of  God  is  felt  to  be  desirable.  But  when  the  naked  meta- 
physical truth  is  brought  forward,  men  are  sure  to  cavil  and  find  fault. 
The  same  remarks  apply  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  Divinity.  The 
naked  proposition;  that  a  person  really  and  truly  possessing  a  divine 
nature,  died  in  shame  on  a  cross  in  this  world,  is  stated,  the  reason 
of  every  man  is  staggered.  But  when  this  doctrine  is  presented  as 
it  is  in  scripture,  in  connexion  with  the  depravity  and  ruin  of  man; 
and  the  sinner  is  made  to  see  and  feel  his  condition,  and  understand 
all  that  is  necessary  for  his  pardon  and  sanctification,  and  everlasting 
salvation;  and  is  commanded  to  trust  in  Jesus  to  do  all  this  for  him, 
he  finds  it  impossible  to  exercise  this  faith,  and  cherish  hope  through 
Christ,  without  believing  that  he  is  a  Divine  and  Almighty  Redeem- 
er. Sooner  might  one  depend  on  an  infant  of  a  month  old,  to  raise 
a  millstone  that  was  crushing  him  to  death;  than  depend  on  a  mere 
man  to  do,  what  Jesus  Christ  has  undertaken  to  do  for  sinners  in 
the  gospel. — These  remarks  will  justify  us  we  hope  to  our  friends, 


mG  Meview  of  Bishop  Ravenscroft-s  Vindication  and  Dejcnct'. 

in  passing  over  many  things  said  by  bishop  R.  against  those  Chris- 
tians who  are  called  Calvinists. 

We  come  now  to  the  bishop's  conckuling  parngraphs.  And  it  is 
with  emotions  felt  by  the  ten  thousand,  in  their  famons  retreat  (im- 
mortalized by  the  pen  of  Xenophon,)  when  after  many  a  weary  step, 
through  a  parched  and  burning  land,  they  camt^  in  sight  of  the  sea, 
and  the  whole  army  at  once  shouted  Qa?jallaf  SaXalla! 

Two  subjects  here  claim  attention  one  respecting  the  political 
as  well  as  religious  influence  of  the  opinions  which  we  oppose,  the 
other  a  letter  written  by  bishop  R.  to  the  Editor  of  the  Literary  and 
Evangelical  Magazine." 

As  to  the  first;  bishop  R.  makes  our  Reviewer  "bring  forward 
the  serious  charge  of  the  surrender  of  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
America,  to  the  views  of  a  foreign  influence,  alike  hostile  to  our 
civil  and  religious  institutions."  We  confess  that  after  all  the 
proofs  which  the  bishop  had  given  of  rash  and  bold  assertion  in 
the  previous  parts  of  his  work,  we  read  this  sentence  vvith  utter 
amazement.  We  did  not  suppose  that  any  ingenuity,  however  per- 
verse, could  ever  have  brought  this  conclusion  out  of  any  ih'wis,  ut- 
tered by  us;  especially,  vvlien  we  absolutely  disclaimed  the  belief 
that  the  bishop  saw  the  consequences  of  his  own  opinions;  and  dis- 
tinctly declared  the  conviction  that  the  Episcopalians  of  the  coun- 
try are  as  much  attached  to  our  political  institutions,  as  any  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

It  is  one  of  the  vile  arts  of  controversy,  to  attach  odium  to  a  man 
by  consequences  derived  from  opinions,  which  he  disavows.  We 
feel  ourselves  to  be  immeasurably  above  any  such  tricks  as  these;  and 
hold  them  in  utter  contempt.  But  it  is  entirely  fair  to  oppose  opin- 
ions by  stating  consequences,  which  we  think  to  be  It^^gitimately  de- 
duced from  them.  This  we  never  hesitate  to  do.  And  in  this  way 
we  mean  to  oppose  high-church  notions. 

In  regard  to  the  particular  matters  now  before  us,  to  which  the 
bishop  with  that  regard  to  decorum  which  characterises  him,  has 
allowed  himself  to  apply  the  epithets,  ''sIa7iderotis  and  false,""  we 
solemnly  declare  that  we  were  actuated  by  no  feeling  but  that  of 
good  will  towards  the  Episcopal  Church.  How  this  was  we  beg 
leave  to  explain.  But  first  we  must  premise,  that  although  we  are 
thoroughly,  and  decidedly,  under  the  f^ullest  conviction,  Presbytcri- 
ans;  and  although  we  wonder  much,  that  all  who  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  making  a  fair  examination,  are  not  Presbyterians  too,  yet 
we  never  could  conceive  of  any  reason,  why  we  should  quarrel  with 
any  man  for  being  an  Episcopalian.  We  never  once  thought  of 
hostility  to  the  Episcopal  Church:  because  we  recognise  it  as  a 
branch  of  the  church  of  Christ  and  its  pious  members  as  Christian 
brethren.  But  we  see  a  palpable  distinction  between  an  Episcopa- 
lian and  a  high-churchman.  Me  may  certainly  be  reckoned  an  Epis- 
copitlian  who  thinks  it  expedient  that  the  church  should  be  placed 
under  the  care  of  bishops,  (diocesans)  and  on  the  whole  prefers  that 
form  of  government;  but  yet  acknowledges  as  brethren  all  who  re- 
ceive the  fundamental  doctrines  laid  down  in  the  39  articles.  He 
may  even  think  this  sort  of  Episcopacy  to  be  of  tlivine  institution,  yet 
not  essential  to  the  being  of  the  church:  and  so  hold  communion  with 


lieviexu  of  Bishop  Ravenscrofl*s  Vindication  and  Defence  207 

non-episcopal  brethren.  But  he  is  a  hi^h-churchman,  who  so  holds 
Episcopacy  to  be  of  flivine  right,  that  there  can  be  no  church  with- 
out prelacy;  who  calls  himself  the  accredited  agent  of  heaven,  the 
substitute  for  Christen  earth;  who  thinks  that  all  the  power  which  the 
Saviour  has  committed  (o  his  Churrh,  is  vested  in  the  ministry,  and 
transmitted  by  succession;  who  regenerates  man  I)y  baptism,  nego- 
tiates his  pardon,  and  uives  him  assurance  of  salvation,  by  the  Lord's 
Supper,  who  binds  the  source  of  all  grace  to  the  fulfilment  of  his 
engagements,  and  brings  the  authority  of  the  church  to  interpret  the 
scriptures.     Now  we  are  most  fully  convinced, 

1.  That  claims  like  these  are  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel. 

2.  That,  as  far  as  they  are  admitted,  they  are  injurious  to  the 
interests  of  true  religion. 

3.  And  that  they  are  hurtful  to  the  cause  of  civil  liberty. 

They  form  the  basis  of  that  stupendous  system,  whicii  when  fully 
erected,  showed  forth  the  Man  of  Sin  in  romplete  revelation. — 
Allow  this  power  to  the  Clergy,  and  they  are  at  once  placed  on 
vantage  ground,  and  nothing  can  prevent  their  ultimately  gaining  a 
complete  ascendency,  but  the  expedient  of  making  the  church  de- 
pendent on  the  state.  It  is  in  vain  to  say,  that  this  authority  is 
only  allowed  to  the  Clergy  in  matters  of  faith.  When  man  surren- 
ders himself  up  to  a  vicar  of  Christ,  in  regard  to  oil  matters  which 
concern  faith,  and  rnnsripuce  and  salvation,  it  will  not  be  long  be- 
fore he  will  yield  stiil  farther;  and  tlirther  still,  until  every  thing 
will  be  obliged  to  submit  to  an  uncontrolled  ecclesi;istical  domina- 
tion. The  growth  of  papal  authority  affords  abundant  proof  of 
these  truths.  And  as  liberty  cannot  exist,  so  piety  cannot  flourish 
under  high-church  influences.  It  soon  becomes  a  matter  of  parade 
and  show;  religion  loses  all  its  spirituality  and  purity:  its  pomp  fills 
the  imagination,  its  ceremonies  satisfy  the  conscience,  while  the 
heart  remains  completely  unmiproved.     ^n(\  then  it  is  that  men 

"  HATE    THE    GOSPEL,    WHILE    THEY    LOVE    THE    CHURCH." 

Here  is  the  reason  why  we  set  ourselves,  not  in  opposition  to 
ihe  Episcopal  church,  but  to  high-church  principles.  We  per- 
ceive that  vigorous  efforts  are  made  to  promote  these  principles  in 
this  country,  and  we  feel  that  the  times  call  for  vigorous  opposition. 
Now  we  did  not,  in  the  least  degree,  intend  to  attach,  even  to  a 
high-churchman,  the  odium  of  consequences  which  all  history 
teaches  us  to  deduce  from  his  principles,  and  therefore  we  stated 
again  and  again,  that  we  did  not  at  all  believe  that  bishop  R.  saw 
through  bis  own  opinions;  and  of  course  we  held  that  he  could  not 
design  to  produce  these  evils.  We  did  intend  to  give  him  a  »varn- 
ing  which,  if  taken  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  given,  might  be  salu- 
tary. Our  Reviewer  is  not  the  first  whose  kind  intentions  have 
been  spoken  of  in  evil  terms.  But  our  benevolence  went  still 
farther.  The  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  this  country,  do  not 
approve  these  high-church  notions.  They  think  them  illiberal; 
and  only  submit  to  them  because  they  do  not  like  to  quarrel  with 
their  Clergy.  In  the  meanwhile,  the  high-churchmen  arc  steady- 
to  their  purpose,  and  the  attem[)t  is  persevermgly  made  to  diffuse 
their  princij)les.— Nor  is  the  attempt  unsuccessful.  Every  observer 
can  mark  the  change.     Fully  believing,   that  complete   success 


;a08  Review  of  Bishop  Ra-oenscroft*s  Vindication  and  Defence. 

would  do  unspeakable  injury  to  the  cause  of  religion  in  general, 
and  to  our  sister  church  (for  so  we  thought  and  felt  in  relation  to 
it — )  in  particular,  we  designed  to  alarm  the  people,  by  pointing 
out  consequences,  which  though  undesigned,  we  believed  certain.- 
For  the  purpose  of  exciting  a  greater  alarm,  we  adverted  to  cer- 
tain facts,  which  at  the  time  ivere  fully  before  us.  It  had  been 
published  in  all  the  newspapers,  that  the  Pope  had  added  ttu'enty- 
four  thousand  dollars  to  his  annual  appropriation  for  supporting  and 
extending  the  Catholic  relij^ion  in  this  country;  ive  heard  on  good 
authority  that  popish  propagandists  were  alert  and  active;  that  a 
zealous  Missionary  Society'  in  Paris  aflurds  very  extensive  aid  to 
the  Missions  of  the  Jesuits  in  this  countr) ;  we  saw  in  the  Christian 
Observer  an  address  to  christians  in  Great  Britain,  stimulating  them 
to  assist  in  building  up  the  Episcopal  church  in  this  country,  by  this 
consideration  that  there  was  danger  lest  the  Roman  Catholics  should 
occupy  the  ground  before  them.  And  in  these  circumstances,  with 
our  full  conviction  that  high-church  prinriples  are  akin  to  popery, 
our  determination  was  to  do  our  humble  part  in  awakening  public 
attention  and  public  feeling  to  such  a  degree,  that  the  people  when 
about  to  settle  a  Mmister,  would  first  ascertain  whether  he  was  a 
high-churchman,  or  a  low-churchman.  In  doing  this,  we  were  sure 
that  we  should  do  great  kindness.  The  prinriples  which  we  op- 
pose, we  do  conscientiously  believe  will  ruin  any  church,  and  any 
country:  and  the  opposition  made  by  us,  was  benevolent,  in  its  ob- 
ject; it  was  intended  to  be  urbane,  respectful  and  christian  in  its 
manner.  The  bigots  of  all  parties  cannot  conceive  of  the  strength 
with  which  we  felt  the  common  bond  of  brotherhood;  nor  of  the 
degree  to  which  we  identified  ourselves  with  all  who  love  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  are  willing  to  co-operate  in  promoting  his  cause:  they 
are  incapable  of  forming  any  idea  of  our  abhorrence  of  a  proselyt- 
ing spirit;  and  of  our  carelessness,  whether,  if  one  were  a  chris- 
tian, he  united  with  r/us  society  or  that;  and  therefore  this  state- 
ment will  appear  to  them  incredible. 

Nor  will  they  be  able  any  better  to  appreciate  our  motives,  in 
holding  back  a  part  of  the  letter  which  bishop  R.  sent  to  the  Editor 
of  our  Magazine.  That  letter  contained  tlie  following  words: — 
When  the  rule  of  interpretation  shall  be  settled  "  it  will  be  time 
enough  to  notice  in  detail,  the  fallacies  which  abound  in  thp  piece 
in  question,  and  to  thank  you  for  holding  me  up  to  religious  and 
political  odium,  while  with  characteristic  Presbyteiian  cunning,  a 
protest  is  entered  against  drawing  the  only  fair  meaning  from  your 
language."  Characteristic  Presbyterian  Cunning  !  It  was 
once  written  by  a  wit  of  great  celebrity;  and  a  keen  observer  of 
human  nature. 

Is  he  a  churchman  ?  tlien  he's  fond  of  power. 
A  quaker  ?  sly — a  presbyterian  ?  sour. 

Whatever  changes  may  have  taken  place,  we  believe  that  high- 
churchmen  retain  their  old  nature:  and  as  for  the  Presbyterians, 
we  have  never  known  evidences  of  their  sourness,  except  when 
they  were  brought  to  encounter  the  followers  and  retainers  of 
worldly  power.  Then  indeed,  they  are  sometimes  a  little  caustic; 
but  thev  have  been  diluted  from  the  concentrated  sourness  of  the 


Review  of  Bishop  Uavenm'ojih  Vindication  and  Defence.  20S 

sturdy  old  Cameronian  to  the  mild  subacid  of  our  Reviewer.  And 
really  and  truly,  it  was  this  gentleness  which  prevented  our  pub- 
lishing the  whole  of  the  hishop's  letter.  He  had  there  spoken  of 
the  Presbyterian  body  in  very  unbecoming  terms.  "  Characteris- 
tic Presbyterian  Cunning  I" — There  are  twelve  hundred  Ministers 
of  the  Gospel,  and  more  than  two  hundred  thousand  professing 
christians,  in  the  United  States,  of  whom  the  bishop  of  North-Caro- 
lina permits  himself  thus  to  speak.  'We  thought  that  the  language 
was  so  bitter,  so  illiberal,  in  a  word  so  misbecoming  the  Epis<;opal 
character  as  drawn  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  we  would  not  let  the 
world  hear  it.  In  tenderness  to  the  bishop's  character  we  withheld 
it,  believing  that  he  wrote  in  anger  what  he  would  repent  of  in  his 
cooler  moments.  This,  if  there  is  truth  in  man,  was  our  reason  for 
forbearing  to  publish  that  which  bishop  R.  does  not  hesitate  to 
bring  before  the  world. 

We  neither,  then,  were  actuated  by  hostility  to  the  Episcopal 
church  nor  any  unfriendly  feeling  to  bishop  R.  in  any  thing  written 
by  us.  On  the  contrary  all  was  kindness  and  goodwill.  And  now 
we  declare  ourselves  to  be  utterly"  incapable  of  unfriendliness  to 
any  who  bear  the  name,  and  exhibit  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ. — 
And  we  do  fully  believe,  that  high-church  principles  are  so  at  vari- 
ance with  the  meek  and  humble  spirit  of  the  Gospel;  with  pure 
christian  charity  ;  with  the  primitive  constitution  of  the  church  ; 
with  the  real  interests  of  the  country;  that  the  people,  every 
where,  ought  to  require  of  a  Minister  of  the  Gopel  a  formal  and 
utter  renunciation  of  such  principles  before  they  afford  him  their 
support. — But  we  are  perfectly  willing;  nay,  earnestly  desirous 
that  all  intelligent,  well  tramed,  pious,  humble  men,  who  have 
consecrated  themselves  to  the  work  of  the  Ministry,  and  are  de- 
voted with  all  their  hearts,  not  to  the  building  up  of  a  party,  not  to 
the  narrow  mterests  of  sectarism,  but  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
salvation  of  men,  may  be  received  in  love,  wherever  they  go,  and 
be  very  highly  esteemed  for  their  works'  sake.  Such  men,  we 
shall  ever  delight  to  recognise  as  brethren; — while  we  shall  ever 
consider  ourselves  as  set  for  opposition  to  the  opinions  of  those 
who  set  up  to  be  vicars  of  Christ  on  earth, 


SlO  dppendix  to  that  pari  of  the  Review 


APPENniX  TO  THAT  TART  OF  THE   REVIEW  OF  BISHOP   RAVENSCROFX's 

BOOK,  WHICH  TREATS  OF   THE  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

EPISTLES  OF    IGNATIUS. 

Ignatius  was  pastor,  presiding  presbyter,  or  bishop  of  the  Church 
at  Antioch.  He  was  celebrated  as  a  man  of  great  piety,  and 
fervent  zeal;  and,  having  been  conversant  with  the  Apostles,  he 
must  have  known  well  what  vvas  the  order  and  discipline  of  the 
Apostolic  Church.  His  testimony  therefore  would  be  of  very  great 
importance,  if  we  could  devise  any  means  of  coming  certainly  at  it. 
In  our  Review,  we  have  not  appealed  to  this  Father,  because  we 
regard  him  as  a  corrupted  witness.  They  who  take  an  interest  ia 
this  subject  have  a  right  to  be  informed  of  our  reasons.  We  here 
give  them  as  briefly  as  possible. 

In  the  reign  of  Trajan,  Emperor  of  Rome,  Ignatius  vvas  put  to 
death  for  his  attachment  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  It  is  related  by 
Eusebius,  iii.  36,  that  he  was  made  prisoner  at  Antioch,  and  con- 
ducted by  a  circuitous  journey  to  Rome,  where  he  was  thrown  to 
wild  beasts,  in  the  year  107;  but  some  say  1  16.  It  is  farther  said 
that  on  his  journey  to  Rome,  he  wrote  seven  epistles;  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  the  Alagnesians,  the  Trallians,  the  Romans,  the  Philadelphians ^ 
the  Smyrnwans,  and  to  Polycarp.  Jerome,  also,  in  his  catalogue 
mentions  these  seven  letters,  and  no  others.  It  seems  therefore 
undeniable  that  in  the  days  of  Jerome  and  Eusebius,  there  were 
extant  seven  letters  ascribed  to  this  pious  and  holy  man.  But  it  is 
a  question,  greatly  disputed  in  former  times,  and  not  yet  decided, 
whether  Ignatius  really  wrote  these  letters,  as  we  now  have  them. 
A  very  brief  history  of  these  famous  writings,  will  show  the  ground 
of  the  doubts  entertained  as  to  this  matter. 

For  a  long  period,  there  was  reason  to  suppose  that  the  letters 
of  Ignatius  had  been  irrecoverably  lost.  But  nearly  at  the  close  of 
the  15th  century,  three  Letters  in  Latin,  ascribed  to  this  Father, 
were  printed  at  Paris.  A  few  years  afterwards,  eleven  letters  in 
the  same  language  were  published  at  Strasburg.  Shortly  another 
edition  was  printed,  with  three  additional  letters.  Finally  the 
number  was  raised  to  fifteen,  of  which,  twelve  were  in  Greek,  and 
three  in  Latin.  These  last  were  soon  universally  regarded  as  spu- 
rious: and  at  length  five  of  those  in  Greek  were  rejected  by  most 
men  of  learning.  There  then  remained  only  seven,  addressed  to 
the  same  persons  that  were  mentioned  by  Jerome  and  Eusebius. 
But  of  these  letters  there  are  two  very  different  sets  of  copies, 
distinguished  by  the  terms  larger  and  smaller.  They  differ  not  only 
in  size,  but  also  in  sentiment  and  doctrine.  The  greatest  number 
of  learned  men,  who  favor  the  genuineness  of  the  Ignatian  writings, 
reject  the  larger,  and  vindicate  the  smaller.  A  few  have  adopted 
the  contrary  opinion,  and  have  maintained  it  with  such  learning  and 
ingenuity,  as  to  render  it  somewhat  dillicult  to  decide  between  them. 
If  the  larger  epistles  are  genuine,  the  smaller  may  be  regarded  as 
an  epitome  of  them;  and  on  the  contrary,  if  the  smaller  be  assumed 
as  genuine,  they  must  have  been  sadly  interpolated  in  making  out 


which  treats  of  the  testimonij  of  the  Fathers.  211 

the  larger.  This  circumstance  throus  considerable  suspicion  on 
the  whole  aflair.  Somebody  must,  one  way  or  another,  hav*^  made 
very  free  with  the  reputed  writings  of  this  celebrated  Martyr. 
But  on  the  whole  vve  are  convinced  that,  on  a  comparison  of  the 
two  sets,  the  smaller  are  to  be  preferred.  We  cannot  here  assigo 
our  reasons.  The  larger  letters  then  may  be  dismissed  as  corrupt 
by  interpolation.  This  is  placing  the  matter  on  ground  chosen  by 
the  most  learned  Episcopalians.  The  great  and  good  archbishop 
Usher,  and  the  learned  bishop  Pearson  have  put  out  their  whole 
strength  in  vindicating  these  smaller  leilers.  If  the  question  could 
have  beon  decided  by  the  learning  and  ingenuity  of  any  men,  that 
have  ever  adorned  the  English  Cliurch,  it  would  have  been  done  by 
Usher  and  Pearson.  After  all,  however,  that  diligent  and  learned 
historian  Mosheim  was  obliged  to  express  himself  in  the  following 
terms.  "Antiquissimas  esse  has  literas,  certissimum  est;  uon  totas 
esse  contictas,  lam  credibile,  ut  nihil  credibilius  fieii  possit  ;  qua- 
tenus  vero  pro  sinreris  haberi  debeant,  id  inenodabile  arbitror." 
It  is  most  certain  that  these  letters  are  very  ancient;  that  they  are 
not  entirely  forged  is  as  credible  as  any  thing  can  be:  but  how  far 
they  are  to  be  held  as  genuine  (or  uncorrupted)  is  an  inextricable 
difficulty.  Com.  De.  Reb,  Clirist,  pa.  161. 

Some  of  the  reasons  which  have  prevented  our  relying  on  them 
as  authentic  documents  of  the  Apostolic  Church  are  as  follows. 

1.  The  manner  in  which  these  letters  speak  of  the  officers  of 
the  church,  is  widely  different  from  that  of  all  the  undisputed 
authors  of  the  first  two  centuries. — We  have  already  shown  that  in 
the  New  Testament,  the  words  bishop  and  presbyter  were  used 
indiscriminately;  and  that  this  mode  of  speaking  was  kept  up  until 
near  the  year  250 — And  that  then  a  change  took  place  in  the  use 
of  terms,  because  a  distinction  was  made  between  bishops  and  pres- 
byters. When  this  distinction  however  was  made,  and  for  some- 
time afterwards,  the  bishop  presided  over  a  single  congregation. 

Now  although  Ignatius  was  an  apostolical  man,  and  of  course 
would  naturally  have  expressed  himself  on  this  subject  in  confor- 
mity with  the  usage  of  his  time,  yet  in  the  letters  ascribed  to  him, 
he  always  distinguishes  between  bishops  and  presbyters;  yet  it  is 
evident  that  the  Ignatian  Prelate  is  the  bishop  of  a  single  congrega- 
tion. No  man  of  common  candor  can  read  tbej^e  letters,  and  not 
acknowledge  this  truth.  Hence  they  appear,  from  internal  evi- 
dence, to  have  been  written  after  the  time  when  a  distinction  ot 
office  was  made  between  bishop  and  presbyter,  yet  before  the 
bishop  was  changed  from  a  parochial  minister  to  a  diocesan.  The 
conclusion  to  which  this  argument  leads  is,  that  these  letters  were 
put  into  their  present  shape,  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  the 
Martyrdom  of  Ignatius. 

2.  These  letters  speak  of  episcopal  dignity  and  importance,  in  a 
manner  entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Apostles.  Let  the  reader 
recollect  the  language  of  Jesus  Christ  and  bis  apostles  in  reference 
to  this  subject,  and  compare  it  vvith  the  expressions  put  into  the 
mouth  of  this  Apostolical  man  by  the  writer  of  the  Ignatian  epistles. 
In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  (v.  vi.)  he  is  madn  to  ■^ay,  "  It  is 
written,  God  Te$ist€th  the  proud.  Let  us  therefore  study  not  to 
27 


£12  ^Ippendix  lo  thai  imrt  oj  Ihe  lieview 

resist  (he  bishop,  that  we  may  be  sultject  to  God.  And  the  more 
sileut  one  sees  a  bishop  to  be,  lot  liim  reverence  him  so  much  the 
more.  For  whomsoever  the  head  of  a  household  sends  to  govern 
his  family,  him  we  ought  to  receive  as  we  do  tlie  one  who  sends 
him:  it  is  manifest  therefore  tliat  ue  ought  to  regard  the  bishop  as 
we  do  tlie  Lord  himselfl"  In  the  epistle  to  the  Tralhans,  (ii.)  he 
13  made  to  remark,  "For  since  ye  are  subject  to  the  bishop  a;;  to 
.lesus  Christ,  ye  ap|)ear  to  me  not  to  live  according  to  the  fashion 
of  men,  but  according  to  Jesus  Christ."  Epist.  to  Philadel.  iii. 
"For  as  many  as  are  God's  and  Christ's,  they  are  with  the  bishop." 
Ep.  to  Srayr.  viii.  "Do  ye  all  follow  the  bishop  as  Jesus  Christ 
docs  the  Father;  and  the  Presbytery  as  the  Apostles:  and  rever 
cnce  the  Deacons  as  the  command  of  God,  &c."  Ai}(l  even  when 
writing  to  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  he  is  made  to  turn  suddeidy  from 
his  brother  clergyman  to  address  the  people  of  his  charge  in  this 
most  extraordinary  language,  ch.  vi.  "Attend  to  the  bishop  that 
God  also  may  attend  to  you.  I  pledge  my  soul  for  those  who  are 
subject  to  the  bishops,  presbyters  and  deacons!"  Is  this  the 
language  of  a  man  who  had  been  a  disciple  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
had  imbibed  their  spirit?     Let  the  reader  judge. 

To  these  internal  evidences  may  be  added  others.  We  think 
that  the  eager  desire  of  martyrdom  expressed  in  these  letters 
belongs  to  a  later  age  than  that  of  the  true  Ignatius.  Peter  and 
Paul  were  ready  to  sacrifice  life  for  the  honor  of  their  Saviour; 
but  they  used  all  lawful  means  to  preserve  and  prolong  life,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Church.  But  Ignatius  is  made  to  express  a  passion 
for  martyrdom,  and  to  attribute  a  merit  to  it,  nnich  unlike  any 
thing  to  be  found  among  the  Apostles.  'J'lie  truth  is  that  at  one 
time  there  was  a  high  degree  of  enthusiasm  in  regard  to  martyr- 
dom; christians  sought  for  it  eagerly;  offered  themselves  to  heathen 
magistrates,  and  refused  to  escape  from  prison  when  they  had  it  in 
their  power.  But  we  do  not  find  any  evidence  of  this  in  the  age  of 
Ignatius — Yet  these  letters  are  replete  with  aspirations  to  this 
honor;  and  that  to  the  Romans,  (iv.)  while  it  aftbrds  evidence  of 
this  fact,  contains  some  strange  expressions  of  apprehension  lest  the 
Uoman  brethren  should  prevent  the  \vished  for  consummation. 
"1  shall  die  voluntarily  for  God,  if  only  you  do  not  prevent  it — 1 
pra\'  you  do  not  exorcise  this  unseasonable  benevolence  to  me." — 
And  more  of  this  kind;  after  which  he  tells  liis  brethren  how  he 
intends  to  irritate  the  wild  beasts,  when  he  shall  have  been  thrown 
lo  them,  so  as  lo  cause  them  to  devour  him  immediately. 

Vj.  In  this  same  letter  to  the  Romans,  the  writer  is  made  to  give 
an  account  of  his  situation  wliich  renders  it  dilTicult  to  understand 
how  he  could  write  so  many  Epistles  to  the  churches.  ''From  Sy- 
ria to  Rome,  I  contend  with  wild  beasts,  by  land  and  sea,  night  and 
day,  being  bound  to  ten  leopards;  that  is  a  band  of  soldiers."  By 
this  it  is  commonly  understood,  that  Ignatius  was  committed  to  the 
charge  often  fierce  and  brutal  soldiers;  and  that,  according  to  the 
usual  custom,  he  was  fastened  to  them  with  chains.  If  this  was 
the  case,  how  was  he  at  liberty  to  write  to  his  friends?  Is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  a  prisoner  of  so  much  importance  as  Ignatius,  who  wa? 
(laQjported  from  Antiocb  to  Rome  to  be  executed,  would  be  allowed 


which  treats  of  the  testimouy  of  the  Fathers.  213 

to  write  what  he  pleased  to  his  brethren  in  any  part  of  the  empire? 
It  is  said,  too,  that  this  illustrious  ntiartyr,  instead  of  being  conducted 
directly  from  Syria  to  Rome,  was  made  to  take  a  circuitous  route 
through  many  cities  of  Asia,  that  his  arrest,  his  condemnation,  his 
certain  death,  might  be  known  generally  to  christians,  might  strike 
terror  into  them,  and  bring  them  off  from  this  new  religion.  But  if 
this  were  tlie  design,  would  Ignatius  have  been  allowed  to  write  let- 
ters, glorying  in  his  suflerings,  and  exhorting  all  christians  to  con- 
stancy? To  this  it  is  replied  that  these  soldiers  might  have  been 
gained  oyer  by  money,  to  allow  this  liberty  to  their  prisoner — If 
so,  how  does  it  comport  with  tiie  language  just  quoted.  "I  am  on 
the  whole  of  this  journey,  by  land  and  sqa  day  and  night  fighting 
with  wild  beasts" — "1  am  chained  to  ten  leopards?"  True;  it  is 
no  gjeat  [)roor  of  human  kindness,  for  a  soldier  to  sell  to  his  prison- 
er the  privilege  of  writing  letters  to  his  friends;  but  it  is  proof  of  ex- 
treme indiscretion  in  a  prisoner  to  insert  in  a  letter  thus  wriften, 
that  his  keeper  was  a  brutal  savage — And  if  Ignatius  was  so  intent 
on  martyrdom  that  he  did  not  wish  to  escape;  yet  he  did  wish  to 
write  letters;  and  he  scarcely  would  revile  his  keepers,  when  they 
might  so  easily  knqw  all  that  he  had  written;  and  would  be  ready 
enough  to  find  a  pretext  for  depriving  him  of  this  privilege. 

We  just  notice  here,  in  passing,  the  argument  of  the  learned  Bo- 
chart,  in  his  Hierozoicon,  against  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles. 
He  says  that  the  word  leopard  (/l£07tapoo$)  did  not  come  into  use 
until  about  the  time  of  Constantine  the  Great,  and  that  therefore 
these  letters  must  have  been  written  at  least  two  hundred  years 
after  the  death  of  Ignatius. 

4.  Learned  men  have  maintained  that  these  letters  make  direct 
allusions  to  heresies  which  broke  out  in  the  church  after  the  deatb 
of  Ignatius.  We  are  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  there  is  truth  in 
this  allegation;  and  if  so  the  objection  is  perfectly  decisive.  To 
examine  this  question  fully  would  require  a  volume.  If  one  will 
read  lyAille  on  the  one  side,  Pearson  on  the  other,  and  UArroque^s 
observations  on  Pearson,  it  will  enable  him  to  form  a  just  judgment 
on  this  much  disputed  subject. 

5.  There  is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  any  of  the  Fathers  were 
acquainted  with  these  letters  before  Eusebius.  The  reference 
made  to  Ignatius  by  Irena^us  is  merely  to  asaying  of  his,  so  short  that 
it  might  easily  be  remembered.  The  passage  is  in  Lib.  v.  cli.  28, 
65  ELTtd  lig  Icov  Yi^isldpcov.  K.  T.  A.  "As  one  qC  us  said,  when 
condemned  to  the  wild  beasts  as  a  martyr  to  God,  'I  am  God's 
wheat,  and  I  am  ground  by  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts,  that  I  may  be 
found  pure  bread.'  Jerome  reports  this  as  a  saying  of  Ignatius, 
lyhen  he  heard  the  roaring  of  the  lions.  Cum  jam  damnatus  c^set 
ad  bestias,  et  ardore  patiendi  rugientes  audiret  leoiies,  ait.  frumentum 
Christi  turn,  dentibus  bestiarum  molar,  ut  panis  mnndus  inveniar. 
"When  he  was  now  condemned  to  the  wild  beasts,  and  heard  the 
lions  roaring,  in  his  ardour  to  suffer,  he  said,  I  am  Christ's  wheat," 
k.c.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Ignatius  spoke  thus.  The  saying 
was  thought  a  very  striking  one,  and  was  often  repeated.  And 
hence  it  might  very  well  find  a  place  in  letters  forged  in  the  name 
of  Ignatius.  Accordingly  we  see  it  in  the  letter  to  the  Romans 
;ynttcn,  as  is  pretended,  when  Ignatius  was  far  from  Rome. 


214  Jippeiuliixj  lo  that  part  of  the  Review,  eye. 

The  reader  cannot  help  observing  that  Irenicus  speaks  of  this  as 
ii  saying  of  some  christian,  and  not  as'  any  thing  written.  Jerome's 
words  do  not  admit  of  any  other  interpretation.  It  is  also  worthy 
of  notice  that  although  Irenaeus  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  the  most 
inlimnte  friend  of  Ignatius,  yet  he  does  not  seem  to  know  who  made 
this  celebrated  speech — Very  possibly  when  once  made,  it  was  fre- 
(jucntly  repeated.  But  had  Irengeus  known  that  it  was  the  saying 
of  his  master's  old  friend,  he  in  all  probability  would  have  so  re- 
ported it. 

Another  remark  may  also  be  here  offered.  It  was  the  object  of 
Irenaeus  in  his  work  to  confute  the  heretics  of  his  day.  In  doing 
this  he  very  frequently  refers  to  the  succession  of  Presbyters  from 
the  Apostles  down  to  his  time,  and  shows  that  all  taught  a  doctrine 
different  from  that  which  he  opposed.  But  although  the  letters  as- 
cribed to  Ignatius  make  several  allusions  to  these  heresies,  yet 
Irenaeus  in  no  instance  uses  the  testimony  of  Ignatius.  This  is  cer- 
tainly a  circumstance  of  some  weight  against  the  writings  in  ques- 
tion. 

6.  Origen  has  been  much  relied  on  as  a  witness  in  support  of  the 
Ignatian  letters;  but  the  testimony  of  this  Father  is  only  found  in 
Latin  works,  which  many  very  learned  men  have  held  to  be  spuri- 
ous; and  that  without  any  reference  to  this  controversy. 

7.  It  might  have  been  best  to  mention  before  this,  the  testimony 
of  Polycarp.  But  it  is  not  material  whether  it  comes  first  or  last. 
For  there  is  strong  internal  evidence  that  it  is  a  forgery.  It  is  not 
found  in  the  Greek  copy,  which  has  been  preserved;  and  it  contains 
a  plain  contradiction  of  what  Polycarp  had  written  before.  This 
Father  exhorts  the  Philippians  to  follow  the  example  of  Ignatius, 
Zozimus,  Rufus,  Paul,  &c.  speaking  of  them  as  already  dead;  but 
in  the  part  which  we  believe  to  be  spurious,  he  requests  the  breth- 
ren of  Philippi  to  send  him  word  what  they  knew,  respecting  Igna- 
tius, and  those  who  are  with  him — de  his  qui  cum  eo  sunt — as 
though  they  were  alive. 

On  the  whole,  we  are  convinced  that  if  Ignatius  did  write  to  the 
churches  on  his  way  from  Syria  to  Rome,  that  his  letters  have  been 
so  tampered  with,  and  interpolated,  or  mutilated,  that  their  testimo- 
ny is  worth  nothing.  But  while  we  maintain  this  opinion,  we  are 
sure  that  the  cause  of  diocesan  episcopacy  can  derive  no  support 
whatever  from  these  writings.  The  bishop  of  Ignatius  was  a  paro- 
chial bishop,  the  pastor  of  one  church,  (and  that  perhaps  not  a  large 
one,)  differing  not,  so  far  as  we  can  ?ee,  in  order,  but  only  in  ojice 
from  his  fellow  presbyters. 


>'  f%::i 


V.    % 


rm^i 


/.-r^. 


***^ 


